To the Death

The Death Penalty has always been a topic of extreme controversy and is perhaps the most well known criminal sanction. Its more proper name is capital punishment which is  defined by Webster’s New College Dictionary (2008) as the infliction of the death penalty, or sentence of punishment by execution, for the commission of certain extremely serious crimes. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) (2008), the first appearance of death penalty laws can be dated back as far as the Code of Hammaurabi in the Eighteenth Century B.C. Since that time civilizations all over the world have used this severe form of punishment to punish criminals for all sorts of crimes. Many different forms of execution have been used including crucifixion, hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, drowning, and poisoning. More modern methods of execution have since surfaced that are considered to be more “humane” such as the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. Many argue that the death penalty is yet another policy that violates the Eighth Amendment’s right against cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, equally as many argue that the death penalty is a necessary evil.   

At its creation, the justification for the death penalty was primarily lex taliones, or eye for an eye. Basically the idea was retribution and the feeling that what the offender took from someone else should be taken from them as well. Using this ideology then, if a person killed someone, they should themselves be killed because when the offender took another’s life, in doing that act they forfeited their own (Bayat, 1999). This rationale dates back to when the church was the primary law maker. Since the church was responsible for laying out the laws of the land, the basis of most of them was morals. In today’s society however,  because of the separation of church and state in the United States in particular, it is much less accepted as a valid justification by the government. That does not stop the public from feeling criminals should pay for the crime of murder with their own life however.

The other justification used to validate the use of capital punishment as a criminal sanction is deterrence. The hope is that seeing those convicted of murder receive such a severe penalty will deter others from committing the same crime. When public executions were the norm, they were in particular thought to have a major deterrent effect since the public could see the humiliation and sometimes torture. Contrary to this hope however, according to the data collected from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) in 2009 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “the average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.9, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 2.8” (DPIC, 2010). What this data suggests is that not only is the death penalty not an effective deterrent, but it may actually be increasing the crime rates – in the United States at least. One argument is that because there are so many delays in most states that there is no certainty for the offenders that they will be actually executed and it therefore serves as a very poor deterrent. No matter what the reason for this phenomenon, it only fuels the fight against the death penalty.

Despite discrediting statistics like those above, the death penalty still remains in favor with a majority of the population. I think many feel that even if the death penalty does not deter crime the way it was intended to, it still eliminates the world of criminals who are considered a gross threat to society and deemed unfit to remain with the general population. Given this sentiment, it should be too surprising then that 36 out of 50 states in the U.S. have implemented a form of the death penalty and many foreign countries employ it as well including Singapore which still has public hangings. Nevertheless, this does not keep people from feeling that it is not the government’s place to kill. In all actuality, they have a valid point since killing is the exact crime the criminal is being punished for. The death penalty is an unforgiving and final punishment that cannot be undone, but it has been deemed a necessary evil and the government obviously still feels that this is the best way to deal with criminals guilty of ruthless and heinous crimes.

References:

Bayat, Mufti Zubair. (1999). Capital Punishment Maintains Law and Order. In Keyzer, Amy Marcaccio (Ed.), Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 53-56). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Webster’s New College Dictionary (3^rd ed.). (2008). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). Facts About the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). Murder Rates 1996-2009. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970

One, Two, Three Strikes You're Out!

The primary ideology criminal justice policies and practices have been based on for decades is the idea of getting tough on crime. One of the most complex issues facing the criminal justice system today is that of career criminals and how to keep them from committing crime. The problem is that this type of offender makes committing crime more than just a hobby – it becomes their way of life (DeLisi, 2005, p. 21). To determine the true impact of this type of criminal, the Pareto principle, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule, has been applied to crime trends and studies found that approximately 80% of the crime is caused by 20% of the criminals (Boba, 2009, p. 33). If this is true, then it seems a logical conclusion that if we lock up that 20%, our crime rates should decline dramatically. The policy aimed at achieving this goal is Three Strikes, the ultimate get tough on crime policy.

The Three Strikes law gained its publicity when it was passed by voters and legislators in 1994 in California. The law quickly gained popularity and many states have since adopted variations of the law, totaling 24 as of 1999 (States with Three Strikes Laws, 2010). A serious felony is considered a strike and as offenders commit more crimes, they do more time. The way the law works is that for a second strike offense, meaning the offender has one pervious serious or violent felony conviction, he or she is given a sentence twice the length of what the law requires. For a third offense however, an offender with two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions is given a term of 25 to life. The law also severely restricts an offender’s options by not permitting probation as an option for the new felony, limits the amount of time reduced for good behavior, and allows for consecutive sentencing for multiple offenses, thus lengthening the sentence even further. The rationale is that increasing sentences for repeat offenders restricts their capability to commit crimes and discourages the committal of new crimes. (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).  

These longer sentences pull criminals off the streets for longer periods of time which is necessary to win the constant battle against crime. The justification is that an offender who has been convicted of at least two felonies and continues to commit crime is unlikely to ever stop (Murphy, 2010). This goes back to the 80/20 rule mentioned earlier.  The pitch is that if law enforcement focuses their resources on the small group of criminals that cause the largest percentage of crimes, crime rates will decrease dramatically. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (2005), reports however that overall conclusions regarding the policy are mixed. This being the case, it may not be quite as successful as originally hoped, but it is nevertheless getting serious and violent criminals off the streets.

But is the law unfair to offenders and tax the criminal justice system more than it helps? It results in more cases to go to trial, which further bogs down the already overworked court system and it increases prison populations. It also causes criminals to be imprisoned for longer which creates an older prison population that costs more money as increased age is linked closely with increased health needs (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). But perhaps the biggest contention is that it is inherently unfair and violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. This Amendment has rendered many policies unconstitutional throughout history and many people feel Three Strikes should be added to that list. Because a strike can stem from a nonserious or nonviolent felony, it allows an offender to potentially be incarcerated for 25 years to life based on petty theft with a prior. To put this in perspective, imagine a criminal with two prior serious felonies, one of which is a theft crime. He decides to steal a case of beer which is a petty theft. For someone without any priors, the case would be tried as a misdemeanor, but because this criminal has a theft related conviction, the case is tried as a felony. If he is convicted, the judge can send him away for 25 years to life. A scenario like this one makes it easy to see why the law has aroused such controversy. Critics find it extremely   unfair as it enables a person guilty of theft to receive the same or a similar sentence as someone guilty of murder (Kitchen, 2009).

Despite the large population against the law when the case went to the United States Supreme Court, it was found to be constitutional. In Ewing v. California the court ruled that because the policy is justified by public safety interest it is in fact constitutional (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). This hardly put critics’ mind to rest, but now that it has been ruled on, it is really up to the voters to repeal the law if they find necessary. There has not been an attempt to completely retract the law, attempt was made to revise the law. In November 2004 Proposition 66 was put on the ballot, but was rejected by voters. Although it failed to pass, 47% voted in favor of the Proposition which shows a significant number of California citizens would support revisions (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).If the law had passed, one of the major revisions would have been changes regarding 25 years to life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent felonies. Seven years later the law still remains unchanged, however paradigms are starting to shift again as many are pushing for more rehabilitation efforts to be expanded; If this trend continues, perhaps we will soon see another attempt to revise the rigidity of the Three Strikes law.

 

References:

Boba, Rachel. (2009). Crime Analysis with Crime Mapping. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

DeLisi, Matt. (2005). Career Criminals in Society. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kitchen, R. Elizabeth C. (2009, September 02). The Pros and Cons of Three Strikes Law. Retrieved from: http://www.edubook.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-three-strikes-law/12561/

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (October 2005). A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade. Retrieved from: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

Murphy, Jenny. (2000, June 12). Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective? Retrieved from: http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html

States with Three Strikes Laws. (2010, December 3). Retrieved from: http://www.threestrikes.org/3strikestates.html

Can You Teach An Old Dog New Tricks?

It seems that in many respects the traditional sentencing of offenders has simply failed. In response to this many people are beginning to suggest rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration and other standard sentences. But what exactly is rehabilitation? In a nutshell, it means to change an offender’s behavior in such a way that it adheres to societal norms – basically, make them normal. Rehabilitation can undoubtedly provide society a great service, if it in fact works as the definition suggests it should. Though the definition sounds simple enough, it is a highly complicated matter that involves attempting to completely change not only what a person does, but in most cases, who a person is. As such, it continues to be a highly controversial goal of the criminal justice system and rehabilitation policies always seem to be under the microscope. While some claim that certain rehabilitation practices do in fact make a difference in reducing recidivism and should be more commonly utilized, others argue that rehabilitation is simply a waste of time. There is merit to both and ultimately, it just comes down to a matter of what works and what doesn’t.  

One success story, if you will, is the use of drug courts. This type of rehabilitation is typically utilized in one of two fashions. The first is prior to prosecution in which the offender is either not prosecuted further or the charges are dismissed altogether. The second is after a guilty plea has been entered in which case sentencing will be waived, and in many cases the records expunged. Both approaches are reliant upon successful completion of the program however. Studies by the United States Accountability Office (2005), on the effectiveness of drug courts have shown that in-program recidivism reduces significantly and post-program recidivism also declines though there have been mixed results regarding drug courts’ abilities to reduce substance relapse. The inability of the programs to prevent relapse has been the cause of scrutiny, but they do help some and therefore make a difference. It is for this difference many fight for the increased use drug courts and programs like them because for every offender successfully rehabilitated, society has one less criminal in their midst.

Less optimistic views claim that efforts to rehabilitate offenders are simply useless. Some even go so far as to argue that rehabilitation is a ridiculous concept because you cannot turn offenders into something they never were (American Community Corrections Institute, 2010). A similar notion to the old dogs can’t learn new tricks saying. A cited example of this failure is the program aimed at juveniles, Scared Straight. Still in practice today and nationally televised, this attempt at rehabilitation uses deterrence as its underlying method of operation. At risk youth and juvenile offenders are taken to jails and prisons and shown what their future will look like if they continue down their destructive paths. The idea behind these programs is that a realistic glimpse of the future that awaits the troubled youth will help to “scare them straight”. While the programs have good intentions, the fact of the matter is recidivism rate in juveniles who participated in Scared Straight actually went up compared to those who received no intervention (Schembri, 2006). Clearly a failure, Scared Straight helps make the case against rehabilitation programs.

While rehabilitation is more widely accepted today as a viable goal of corrections, this was not always the case. Opinions have been changed over time as seen with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who only added the “R” to their name on July 1, 2005 (GAO, 2005). Although many corrections departments now include rehabilitation in their mission statements, there is still a long way to go if it is to be a successful endeavor. While opponents are simply waiting for the rest of the world to see it can’t be done, those in favor are working hard to develop new, successful rehabilitation programs to offer offenders. It has taken a long time to get practices where they are today, and it will no doubt take even longer to discover if there are in fact methods of rehabilitation that will prove effective enough to be used around the world. I hope those for and against can both at least agree to allow efforts to continue as there is still so much left to discover about criminals and why they do what they do. Perhaps we have simply not yet found the solution to helping offenders change their ways, but then again, there is no saying we ever will.

References:

American Community Corrections Institute. (2010). Rehabilitation in the Criminal Justice System. Offender Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.offender-rehabilitation.com/rehabilitation-in-the-criminal-justice-system/

Bureau of State Audits. (2005). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: The Intermediate Sanction Programs Lacked Performance Benchmarks and Were Plagued With Implementation Problems. Retrieved from http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2005-111.pdf

GAO. (2005). Adult Drug Courts. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219.pdf

Schembri, Anthony J. (2006, August 1). White Paper: Scared Straight Programs, Jail and Detention Tours. Retrieved from http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Scared_Straight_Booklet_Version.pdf

How Much Information is Too Much?

Whenever there is a discussion regarding sentencing the topic of sex offenders cannot be ignored. There have been various methods employed with the attempt to appropriately sentence and punish sex offenders. However, there is a subcategory of conflict and divided opinion between those who consider incarceration most appropriate and those who consider medical treatment most appropriate for sex offenders. The varieties of sentencing options include group and or individual counseling, traditional incarceration, and even chemical and surgical castration. Some places still use varying methods of castration including certain states within the United States and the Czech Republic, who uses surgical castration at the request of prisoners (Mullins, 2009). Although there is a variety of sentencing options, there are mixed reviews about whether any of these methods are effective.

In addition to the sentencing practices mentioned above, many countries have adopted the use of sex offender registries to maintain the whereabouts of sex offenders. The use of this system varies greatly from country to country. For example, the United Kingdom provides an extensive registry called ViSOR, which is a multi-agency collaboration across all regions of the UK (National Policing Improvement Agency, 2010). Canada also has a national sex offender registry that was established by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, which is a national sex offender database that contains information on convicted sex offenders. This provides police with an essential investigative tool (Public Safety Canada, 2011). Both of these registries are helpful for the countries they serve, however, in some counties the essential information on sex registries can only be accessed by law enforcement officials (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2008). However, this is not the case in the United States.

 Unlike those of Canada and the UK, citizens can access the registries of each state in the United States. The online sex offender registry gives the general public access to an array of information including the address of some offenders, the offense, a picture, and full description of the criminal. The motivation for this system began after the murder and rape of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994 (Nevada Department of Public Safety, 2010). The idea is that if citizens are able to know where offenders live in their communities they can be vigilant while avoiding and deterring future sex crimes.

Overall the fact that anyone in the United States can get on the internet and find sex offenders in any area provides a since of awareness. But can access to this information hinder as much as it helps? The instinctive answer is no, however the discussion of sex offenders frequently involves emotion and there is a perception that those on the sex offender registry are mainly child molesters or pedophiles.  Although there are offenders guilty of crimes against children, not all people guilty of a sex offense committed a crime against children. The offenses that force someone to have to register for the rest of their lives vary state-to-state. Having access to this kind of sensitive information can be cause for undue harassment, especially if the information is not presented in a way to avoid misunderstandings. There is a disclaimer of sorts warning citizens not to use the information to discriminate or harass offenders; however bold type words are hardly enough to stop discrimination or in extreme cases, crimes against the offenders.

 While sentencing processes should continue to evolve it is also essential to educate the public. It is essential to educate the public about the different types of sex offenders to prevent any form of discrimination. A possible way to evolve the system is to have separate registries for offenders who commit sexual crimes against children, which is the crime a majority of citizens equate with anyone on the sex offender list, and those who commit other types of sex crimes. Both of the lists would still be available to the public. Education coupled with evolving sentencing procedures can give law enforcement and the community a better sense of security while protecting the rights sex offenders maintain.

 

References

Nevada Department of Public Safety. (2010). Nevada Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from http://www.nvsexoffenders.gov/sorstart.aspx

National Policing Improvement Agency. (2010). Dangerous Persons Database – ViSOR. Retrieved from http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10510.htm
Public Safety Canada. (2011). National Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/tls/soir-eng.aspxRoyal Canadian Mounted Police. (2008). National Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tops-opst/bs-sc/nsor-rnds/prog-eng.htm

Mullins, K.J. (2009, February 11). Czech Republic Uses Surgical Castration on Sex Offenders. Digital Journal. Retrieved from http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267014

Nieto, Marcus. (2004). Community Treatment and Supervision of Sex Offenders: How It’s Done Across the Country and in California. California State Library – California Research Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf

Time for Change?

Sentencing criminals has been a topic of controversy for as long as it has been around. For centuries it has been up to much debate as to what to do with law violators, and interestingly enough this is still a predicament today. Throughout history there is documentation of criminals being exported to other lands, killed, tortured, and shunned. While modern sentencing includes a variety of punishments such as fines, incarceration, parole, probation, community service, and death. More recently attempts have been made to introduce intermediate sanctions for all types of criminal offenders such as boot camps, house arrest, drug courts, and even drug rehabilitation programs. The ever-evolving efforts to effectively sentence criminals shows that sentencing is of great importance to the criminal justice system. Sentencing is how justice is achieved for the victims and the community. Ideally, the effects of sentencing would deter individuals from committing future criminal offenses. However, there is clearly a flaw in the appropriateness of sentencing since the recidivism rates continue to grow.

Despite the creation of numerous sentencing methods and policies that have been implemented with the attempt to diminish criminal behavior, there is still an ever-increasing rate of recidivism. This is proven by the abundance of published statistics by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). BJS has stated on several occasions that the number of adults in corrections has been increasing. In 2007, over one million offenders on parole were considered at risk of reincarceration, and in 2009 there were over 7.2 million people under some form of correctional supervision (BJS, 2009). The increasing rates of recidivism are portrayed as a failure in the criminal justice system and it would appear as though sentences are not harsh enough to prevent crime from occurring. Reducing the crime rate is a goal of every law enforcement practitioner; however problems remain when determining what sentences are appropriate that can reduce recidivism, ensure justice, and are cost effective.

Whenever sentencing and corrections are discussed it is common to be concerned with the fiscal impacts. For example, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was allocated $9,776,618,000 for the fiscal year of 2007-2008, and the question on many minds is what is that massive amount is being budgeted for. The goal of the money being spent on corrections and the several sentencing options like probation, parole, etc. is to serve justice for the victims, ensure that the criminal is punished for their criminal choices, and essentially to reduce crime rates. However, there is much controversy over the continued outcomes of such sentences being handed out. Crime rates aren’t decreasing, which infuriates society that so much tax payer money is being spent on this aspect of the criminal justice system that is not appearing to work. So the question remains, is there another option for sentencing that could have better results?

In the United States, prisons have been the method of sentencing for years. However, the costs both fiscally and socially may suggest it is time to determine if current practices are the best. Statistics can’t be ignored and they show that perhaps our current methods simply aren’t cutting it. It is possible that if nothing changes, we will be left with the same problems and crime trends. On the other hand, it may be determined that current methods are the best available. Regardless, there should be constant evaluation of whatever practices are being used to allow for improvements. Ultimately the goal of sentencing is simple, to punish the offender responsible for the crime, to deter them and others from future criminal behavior, to rehabilitate offenders, and to show that reduction of recidivism is possible.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Correctional Population Trends Chart. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm

 Bureau of Justice Statisctics. (2011). Recidivism. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2011). Budget Management. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Budget/index.html

California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2011). How Much Do California Counties Spend on Local Corrections? Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/2_cj_county_spending.aspx?catid=3