essay of criminal justice system

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

(20 reviews)

Alison S. Burke, Southern Oregon University

David E. Carter, Southern Oregon University

Brian Fedorek, Southern Oregon University

Tiffany L. Morey, Southern Oregon University

Lore Rutz-Burri, Southern Oregon University

Shanell Sanchez, Southern Oregon University

Publisher: Open Oregon Educational Resources

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Meg Chrusciel, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin - Superior on 11/27/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The textbook does an excellent job covering the wide array of topics relevant for an introductory level criminal justice class. Rather than digging in too deeply, this book really focuses on skimming the surface of each topic (as a strong introductory book should). What is especially noteworthy is the organization both overall and within chapters. There is a lot of information included and it can get confusing quickly without proper structure and organization. This book has both. Further, the use of text boxes including example and discussion questions are so helpful for the reader and could be useful for classroom discussions. I would like to see more inclusion and discussion of drugs embedded throughout, if not made into its own chapter. Drug policy has shaped so much of the criminal justice system, it seems to warrant a deeper discussion than is made here. It is worth noting, however, that the chapter dedicated to policy is one of the strengths of this textbook. The glossary is excellent, but an index page would be helpful as well.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

There were no glaring inaccuracies in this book. It addresses some controversial subjects clearly and objectively.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Because this book takes such an objective stance, it sometimes brushes over, if not omits entirely, some key concepts related to crime (e.g., drug use, gender, race). This hurts its ability to remain timely, though its discussion of underlying systems will remain relevant. Because the book includes example boxes and news boxes, these will likely need updating as time goes on, but even when older, the examples still make for good discussions or thought pieces.

Clarity rating: 5

The clarity of this textbook is one of its greatest strengths. It avoids jargon without explaining and contextualizing the language. The definitions provided are written in simple terms and straightforward. The authors use terminology commonly used by practitioners and researchers and does so in a way that an undergraduate student can understand. It is easy to follow and clearly written.

Consistency rating: 5

There are difference in tone and writing style between chapters written by different authors, though they are subtle and likely will go unnoticed by most undergraduate readers. The authors did adopt similar language and word choice throughout which helps the book read more cohesively, while still capturing different perspectives.

Modularity rating: 5

The modular approach of this textbook is outstanding. The book is broken into sections which each include a number of chapters. Within each chapter there are subsections which further help structure the content in a way that is easy to follow and interpret. An added benefit is that the chapters feel a bit shorter (despite containing the same content and page length as a traditionally written chapter). This helps make the sections feel more manageable and likely less intimidating or overwhelming for students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This textbook follows the traditional four section (overview, policing, courts, and corrections) structure of most introductory books do in this field. As noted above, its modularity makes this a very well organized book that is easy to follow and makes sense for someone brand new to learning in this field.

Interface rating: 4

The interface is excellent, however it is really unfortunate that there is no index that allows you to jump around more easily. It is a long scroll in its PDF format. The use of images, tables, charts, and other graphics is immensely useful and really strengthens this book.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not notice any grammatical errors, at least any that impeded my reading.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I did not find any of this textbook to be culturally insensitive or offensive. However, it could make more effort at being inclusive and representing a more diverse breadth of experiences. In trying to avoid insensitivity, it almost felt afraid to talk about some of the more problematic realities of our CJ system (such as the racial disparity in mass incarceration).

This is a great alternative to the very expensive introductory books in our field. Just as with all textbooks, its needs some adjustments and contextualization by the course instructor to really be appropriate in a respective classroom, but it certainly offers a great tool for those teaching introduction to criminal justice courses.

Reviewed by Summer Diamond, Lecturer II, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 12/21/22

I was impressed with the wide range of areas this text covers. It begins with the history and makes its way through to current issues, which I appreciate. The Learning Objectives and Critical Thinking questions at the beginning of each section are beneficial for students to know the "why's" of what they are learning and how to apply. I however, wish that there were more definitions in each section as this is an Introduction course and most students have not heard of a lot of these important terms being discussed.

Content Accuracy rating: 3

The content in the text is shown to be unbiased as it does come from different view points and authors. However, I found there to be some issues with accuracy of delivery of certain terms/subjects. Such as the dark figure or hidden figures of crime, the funnel effect and the delivery of jails and prisons. These particular points are crucial to teaching this topic and it was lacking in full details of each of these areas and only briefly touched the importance of them. Intro students and even higher levels need to know that jails and prisons are not interchangeable terms and although it did give a good list of the differences there could have been even more discussed to differentiate the two.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The topics covered in this text range from the history of the CJ System to the current times which will be easy to update with any current relative events dealing with these issues and topics as time progresses. The stats listed provided a historical context but also the current stats such as those listed in the probation section provide context to what is being discussed and can be kept up to date easily.

Clarity rating: 4

The text uses personal perspectives and stories from the authors and not strictly from an academic setting that helps student relate more to the subjects and understand the application of certain situations. This is helpful in not only a lecture setting but in online courses as well.

Consistency rating: 4

The text has a good flow between the chapters and subheadings. Since it is from more than one author some areas were less informative than others and could have had more content added.

This text will be easy to pick and choose certain topics to the relative sections being covered in a specific module of my course and will be a good addition to assigned readings.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The topics chosen are clear and in a logical order that is easy to read and assign to students.

Interface rating: 5

The text is an easy read especially for undergraduate students.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

There were a few grammatical errors as the stories provided for better understanding were from personal perspective the tone and language used was appropriate for them.

The text seemed to provide more current issues/stories in the media and therefore more sensitive to certain hot topics that we are dealing with in our current society.

This will be a great up to date supplement to my current required textbook. It will be easy to assign students to read additional material without them feeling overwhelmed as the sections are shorter than most textbooks which students these days will appreciate.

Reviewed by Jessica Peterson, Assistant Professor, Southern Oregon University on 12/4/22

This book is a nice and easy-to-understand introduction to the criminal justice system. As a policing scholar, I wanted to see more of a historical and analytical overview of policing. Some chapters provided more detail/in-depth discussion than... read more

More than one perspective is provided in this book.

The field of criminal justice is constantly changing; at the time it was written, the stats/charts were recent. This text is still relevant and - as a new volume is soon to come out - will be a nice intro for students throughout the 2020s.

The book is written in a relatable tone - rather than strictly academic prose - that students appreciate.

The chapters are written by different individuals, so there are differences in tone throughout the book. However, there is consistency within chapters and components of the CJ system (e.g., cops, courts, corrections).

I was able to assign sections of the reading according to what I planned to cover, even if that meant dividing up chapters.

Again, it is relateable for undergraduate students.

This book reads pretty easily.

There are some noticeable grammatical issues, but the book is meant to provide undergrad students with an introduction to the system that is less academic in nature and more relatable. From that perspective, it does a nice job of remaining conversational.

Overall, the text - particularly certain chapters - tends to address diversity, inclusion, and the lack of attention to diverse perspectives throughout the study of criminology and the criminal justice system.

I survey my students on course materials and they appreciated the local examples and relatable content in the book. This book provides a brief overview of the US criminal justice system and allows a lot of room for faculty to lecture/cover what they would like to. Assigning readings does not feel overwhelming from a faculty perspective and allows you to provide other outside materials without overburdening students.

Reviewed by Frank D'Agostino, Professor, North Shore Community College on 11/3/22

This textbook covers all the major content areas required for an Intro to CJ class. Each content area is covered in a clear and comprehensive fashion. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This textbook covers all the major content areas required for an Intro to CJ class. Each content area is covered in a clear and comprehensive fashion.

The textbook cites legal sources which indicate that the text has been thoroughly researched and therefore is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The textbook cites resources from within the last 10 years. My only comment here is that its unclear when the text was last revised, and in the Criminal Justice field the law/practice/procedures can change quite rapidly. This OER source may need to be updated.

Despite drawing on numerous authors, the textbook does flow and the prose is both lucid and accounts for any jargon used in the criminal justice field. e.g. specific terms like a "wobbler" (a criminal act in CA that could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony) are clearly explained. I would give this category a 4.5 if allowed to.

Consistency can be an issue when relying on numerous authors (see comment to Clarity above) but this text does a good job blending the writing styles as well as the terminology/framework. Not an easy task when doing an overview of an entity as vast as the American criminal justice system. Once again, I would give this category a 4.5 if allowed to.

Perhaps the greatest strength/asset of this text is the ease within which the reader can move between different topics and subtopics. This makes initial reading easier, but also makes reviewing text passages (say while preparing an assignment or studying for a quiz/test) also quite facile.

This text employs the classic organization for an Intro to CJ textbook. In short, it works, and if it isn't broke then don't fix it!

I didn't find many interface issues, most links work well, and moving back into the text was efficient, in that it brought you back to the place in the text you previously were. However, I did find that in some cases additional software was required. For example, in 7.3 the structure courts section, the 360° virtual campus tour of The U.S. Supreme Court requires the Adobe Flash Player. Perhaps this requirement is disclosed to the user up front, but if it isn't, I suggest that the authors do so.

There were no grammatical errors that I found. Of course, I am not an English teacher!

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

While I don't think the text is offensive, it does miss the opportunity to examine cultural, as well as racial, gender and ethnic, issues in a more detailed and up to date manner. For example, in 5.9 Strain Theories, 5.10 Learning Theories, 5.11 Control Theories of crime, the author relies on the seminal works to explain the topics, but misses on the opportunity to use more recent research. Although, in 5.12 other criminological theories, the author does briefly mention critical thoeries.

This is a solid Intro to CJ book. While I didn't see an associated test/question bank, I assume there is one available in the Library (perhaps?) I would suggest including some more recent cases/examples from media sources to make the text more relevant to the reader. Otherwise, great job.

Reviewed by Bahiyyah Muhammad, Associate Professor of Criminology, Howard University on 1/31/22

This book cover an array of different topics connected to the American criminal legal enterprise. Readers can find all traditional topics that one would cover in an entry level criminal Justice course. For example, Introduction to Criminal Justice or Principles of Criminal Justice. Students who use this text will be introduced to all the classical and traditional works needed to comprehensively understand the legal system.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The content for this text is presented in an unbiased manner. Each of the chapters are written in prose that are easy to comprehend for dual-enrollment high school students and early year college students.

This book has relevance for now and can be used for the future. The historical components discussed about the criminal system have relevance for the contemporary and will still be relevant as the system progresses forward. The topics in each chapter serve to frame and contextualize the major themes of the system. Ultimately, these (police, courts and corrections) can be taught during any timeframe.

The text is very clear. It is written using short sentences, examples and without subject matter expert jargon. It is written in a format that many will be able to understand without confusion. Each chapter is broken into sub-sections. This makes the content easy to digest. It also gives readers an opportunity to gain full clarity before moving into a new topic. The chapter exercises are clear and connect to real experiences. This helps readers to triangulate course information with real life. This is also helpful because it allows the instructor/course facilitator to bring in additional resources to help explain concepts further.

Each chapter follows the same layout. This helps young readers and growing scholars know exactly what to expect in each section through the text.

The textbook modularity is GREAT! The information is broken in smaller topical sections that contribute to the larger argument. This is helpful for both the reader and instructor. This modularity helped me to break the syllabus into weekly content that was consist throughout the semester. With this format student success in the course was increased. Because they knew how much they needed to read each week in order to complete each section. The book format allows consistency in contact and number of reading pages.

The organization of the book flows logically.

Images and chart are available throughout the text. This is helpful for visual readers.

There were no grammatical errors that students brought up. I also did not pick up on any of these kinds of errors.

This text provides culturally relevant content. Students in evaluating the course requested to have more of such content. Specifically, to highlight the critical ways in which race intersects with the criminal legal system.

I have used this book for 3 semesters. It has worked well in my large and small classes. I have one section of Principles of criminal Justice with 50 students. I have another with 300 students. This book is a good choice for teaching introductory criminal legal/criminology courses.

Reviewed by Wendi Babst, Instructor, Clackamas Community College on 1/2/22

The text is an excellent introduction to a wide range of topics. The structure of the text walks the reader through the topics and explains the concepts in simple terms which are appropriate for students who are beginning a criminal justice course of study or those who are exploring the discipline. The index and glossary are adequate for navigating the information in each section.

I found the information to be accurate and unbiased. As an Oregon-based educator, I may not have noted information that was not applicable to another jurisdiction as was noted by other reviewers.

I appreciate that the information is succinct and covers the basics of each topic leaving room for the adopter to supplement with their own online or other content. There are several links to some good resources that are not controlled by the author, and I have some concern they may become inactive or direct students to the wrong information in the future. I know this can be a frustration for students. As an instructor using an OER textbook, I would anticipate spending time proofing these links each time I use the textbook and providing alternatives as needed. I would expect most instructors are constantly looking for current content to keep up to date with legal changes and to keep students engaged, so using this text as a starting point for each topic is a great way to compliment other more current and easily updated resources, such as internet content.

The format of the text should allow for updates to be easily implemented. I recognize it is a huge undertaking to maintain updates, but the basic framework is solid, and this would greatly expand the shelf-life of the textbook.

I found the textbook to be well-written and easy to understand. There are simple definitions for most technical terms, and these are also referenced in the glossary. The textbook is written in a conversational style that I believe students will find appealing. I know some reviewers commented about the informal style taking away from the credibility of the text, but in a time when textbook publishers are creating comic book format materials, there is clearly an expressed desire for more informal reference material. This textbook strikes a good balance between authority and approachability I believe my students will appreciate.

Overall, the material is consistent throughout the text, but it is clear there are different authors for each section. There are subtle differences in the style of each author, but this allows for students to understand they are getting some diversity of input and it also reflects the author for each topic has specific expertise in that area which lends to the credibility of the information.

Each section is very short and easy to follow. The modules were organized well and flowed nicely from topic to topic. Each chapter was labeled, and the sub-categories broke down the material well making it easy to locate information quickly.

The topics were presented in a clear and logical fashion. The learning objectives were clearly stated and met in the content of each section.

The layout of the text is simple with limited graphics and color use. This works well for use with accessibility technology. There were some graphics that appeared distorted but were still readable. I did note at least one graph that didn’t contain any date range information which was bit confusing, but overall, the graphics worked well and were well labeled.

I noted a few grammatical errors in the text sections and the glossary, but none that greatly impacted the content.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text provides a good balance of examples that reflect the diversity of the community. It was especially refreshing to have the perspective of a female law enforcement officer in the policing section. There was nothing culturally insensitive or offensive in the text.

This is an excellent basic text for use in course providing an overview of the U.S. criminal justice system, but sections also provide an excellent basic framework for other more in-depth courses focusing on a particular topic or topics. My hope is to adopt sections of this textbook for focused courses on corrections and juvenile justice which will necessitate supplementing other references for most topics, but this is one of the best examples of an OER criminal justice text I have found. I am very appreciative of the work the professors at SOU put into this project.

Reviewed by Scott Bushway, Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice, Massachusetts Bay Community College on 5/25/21

This text explains how a criminal case proceeds through the criminal justice system very effectively. Each of the three components of the criminal justice system - law enforcement, courts, and corrections - is fully covered. It explains the importance of data collection to measure crime, which is essential to effective resource deployment. The court system is explained in fairly simple terms for a rather complex subject. Jurisdiction, court structure, appeal process, and court staff are all described in detail. The chapters covering the court begin with a brief history of the court system, including the history and differences between prisons and jails, including the different types of each. Restorative justice is highlighted as well as alternatives to incarceration such as diversion, and community corrections. As a final topic, the components of juvenile justice are well defined, which include rehabilitation and the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act of 1974.

Alison Burke, Ph.D. is co-author with five other subject matter experts who have provided research-based analysis of each subject.

This textbook is relevant to today's criminal justice system and addresses current issues and challenges with each component of the criminal justice system.

The textbook is written in such a way as to address each subject with clear and concise language. Each chapter is formatted so that each topic is easily located and easily explained.

There do not appear to be any contradictions of material.

This book is easy to navigate as each chapter is properly titled with each sub-section formatted clearly.

The text begins with an overview of the criminal justice system. Then, methodically addresses crime, criminal justice policy, and policing before moving into the second component of the criminal justice system, courts. The final sections address the third component of the criminal justice system, which is corrections.

There is nothing in the textbook to distract or confuse the reader.

I found no grammatical errors in this book.

This textbook address the criminal justice system, which is factual, therefore not culturally insensitive or offense.

Reviewed by Ziwei Qi, Assistant Professor, Fort Hays State University on 5/22/21

The overall structure of the textbook is comprehensive. The authors strategically design the book for readers who needs an overall introduction understanding on the American criminal justice system. It includes an overview on crime, deviance, and justice system, scientific measurement on crime and crime trend, legal aspects of the criminal/procedure laws, sociopolitical impact on legal policy, criminological theories, the three pillars of the criminal justice system (i.e., policing, court, and correction), and the juvenile justice system. In each of these sections, the authors were able to provide both case studies and statistical information to the readers. One drawback of the content is its information can be outdated due to some statistics were in 2017.

The information presented in the current textbook was accurate with empirical and theoretical evidences as backup.

As previously mentioned, the authors could update some of the statistical analysis and research results by incorporating most recent research. While updating the information, the authors could also consider to add an additional chapter on how the Covid-19 pandemic shifted the dynamic of criminal justice system.

The charity level of the current textbook was overall good. In some chapters, such as criminal trial procedure chapter, authors can consider to incorporate infographic for beginning learners.

Overall the text is internally consistent with minor terms discrepancies, which may due to multiple authorships.

Modularity rating: 4

The authors had done an excellent job in modularity. Each section has its own theme and content, and it can be taught in segment.

The organization of the current text is good with very detailed and professional edits in the fine details of the content matter.

The interface of the current text is good.

No grammatical errors were noticed.

No cultural insensitivity was detected.

I believe this is a great book for beginners in criminal justice, law, and political sciences. I applaud that the authors can combine both theoretical and empirical context in the current book.

Reviewed by Brittany Ripper, Adjunct Professor, American University on 2/26/21, updated 3/23/21

The book covered the core components of law enforcement, courts, and corrections. However, greater detail was needed in certain areas. For example, the book listed defenses to a criminal charge, but did not provide explanations of these defenses.... read more

Overall, the content is accurate, but key details are missing in certain chapters. For example, the book tells readers that judges sentence individuals convicted of a crime. While that is true in most cases, Kentucky still has jury sentencing, and Virginia only recently abolished this practice. Moreover, juries are used in death penalty cases. In regard to bias, one author claims that the defense attorney in the Ford Pinto homicide trial won the case because he was friends with the judge. This case could have been described in a more neutral way.

Many current events and pop culture references are made. These events were usually contained within text boxes, so they could be easily updated over time.

Clarity rating: 3

The book needs a significant amount of editing. There are several sentences that are missing words, particularly in the first few chapters. Jargon like "district attorney" and "Schedule I" is sometimes used without explanation. Bolded terms do not have clear definitions.

Consistency rating: 3

Chapters are written by individual authors and there is no standard chapter organizational framework.

I would definitely recommend assigning particular sections of this textbook, as opposed to assigning the textbook in its entirety. Each chapter is broken down into digestible sections.

The book is appropriately organized by topic.

Interface rating: 3

Pictures included within the text are often fuzzy or unusually large. Additionally, there is inconsistent use of text boxes separating chunks of text from the main body of the chapter. Several links to websites are broken.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

There are grammatical errors throughout the book, which affects its credibility and could inhibit students' learning.

The book does not go out of its way to be inclusive, but there are no insensitive or offensive statements within it. It would be nice if the term "offender" was replaced with "accused" or "individual convicted of a crime."

The chapters on policing are wonderful and full of practical information. They are written by a former police officer who discusses her firsthand experience. I will likely be using the chapter on police recruitment in my future criminal justice courses.

Reviewed by Riane Bolin, Assistant Professor , Radford University on 1/29/20

This textbook is comparable to most other introduction textbooks on the market in terms of the content. However, one topic included in this textbook that is often integrated into other chapters is criminal justice policy. I appreciate that there is a chapter specifically devoted to this topic as its importance is often understated in other texts. I also appreciate that there is a whole chapter on criminological theories as well. Several texts will either exclude this topic or will integrate it within another chapter, often not giving it the attention that it deserves.

I did not find any inaccuracies within the content. However, there are a couple areas throughout the text that I believe would benefit from further elaboration and explanation.

The textbook provides the "nuts and bolts" of the criminal justice system, including its history, development, and current issues. With that being said, the only information that will need to be updated with some frequency is the current issues facing the system and changes to the system as well as any current events and examples. This task should be relatively easy and straightforward and could be done every so often as opposed to yearly.

The book is easy to read and I think the content will be easily digestible for undergraduate students. The authors write in a conversational manner which I believe will be appealing to students. Unnecessary academic jargon is avoided and key terms are defined in ways in which someone new to criminal justice would be able to understand.

Overall, the text is relatively consistent in terms of terminology. Framework, on the other hand, varies by author. Some authors include lots of activities and external resources, while others include few to none. Another inconsistency is the tone and writing style of the different chapters. Some authors have a different writing style than others. A final inconsistency, which may not be of great concern, is the subsection length. There are some chapters (and even subsections) that are more detailed than others. One recommendation I would have for the authors is to make each subsection relatively equal in length. Most sections take up 3-4 pages, but there are some sections that are covered across 6-7 pages. This is not as big of a deal if the student has the print version, but online, the larger sections require a lot of scrolling, which may discourage them from reading all of the content.

The authors have done an excellent job of dividing each chapter into small reading sections. It would be very easy for a professor to tailor the textbook readings to meet the needs of how they teach the course.

The topics are presented in a logical and clear fashion and mirror the way in which information is presented in similar texts. However, I would encourage the authors to provide a more detailed table of contents for the online book. While the print version of the textbook, provides a detailed table of contents the online version provides only the title chapters.

Overall, I encountered few significant interface issues. However, there were places where the spacing was weird or there were inconsistencies in font type. There were also a few images that appeared distorted. In some cases, this was likely due to the age and quality of the original picture. Some graphs were also distorted (i.e., that appeared stretched out and disproportionate). While I did not click on every link available, I clicked on several and did not encounter any broken links.

Grammatical Errors rating: 2

I found a number of grammatical and typographical errors throughout. While most were minor and would not inhibit the student from understanding the information that was being communicated, they were still distracting. Also, there were numerous formatting errors with the references.

I did not find any of the content to be culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. However, examples from the book focus a lot on Oregon. While I understand this is where the authors are currently working, for those outside of Oregon, it would be nice to have examples from a wide variety of locations. There could be a more detailed discussion of the impact of race and gender within the criminal justice system.

This book has a number of strengths including that it is written in a manner in which an undergraduate or someone new to criminal justice would understand, it includes a number of links to current events and stories that could be used for class discussion, student activities are provided, and, most importantly, it covers the necessary content. However, there are some areas in which the book could be improved. Having a consistent tone throughout regardless of the author would make the book easier to read. Further, a thorough editing of the text is needed as there are a number of grammatical and typographical errors throughout. Additionally, adding more examples from states other than Oregon would make it more marketable to professors working in other states. Overall, I think the content is there, it just needs some editing and formatting.

Reviewed by Zerita Hall, Senior Lecturer, University of Texas at Arlington on 1/28/20

The authors of this book; "Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System", did a great job. Comparing it to my required textbook for purchase by other authors, this book covered most of the material and is comprehensive. This book is cultural and systemic relative to the topics of today. The glossary could be a little more expansive, but overall - good job. Although there is no index, considering this book is online a simple navigation of tabs - students can easily find what they are looking for.

Given the introductory text, it can be concluded that this book is unbiased. Dealing with Criminal Justice and its topics, I have it easy for authors to speak more from their view point than stats and facts. This book, however, gives actually data on issues that matter. For instance, in Chapter 6-Stereotypes in Policing; this could be guarded as opinion, but in this industry, they state the facts of groups as a whole. The reader can get a more realistic sense of how to view possible perpetrators as well as the police.

There is relevant information in the text. With current insight on gangs, juveniles, examples of immigration and genocide, to statistics, interviewing skills of police, surveys/studies - advances and updates to this text can easily be made. The examples given are contextualized so that whatever current event is going on a student will get the point being made. Additionally, because of the examples with hyperlinks, students/instructors can link more examples.

This book is an easy read and easy to follow and understand. Due to the nature of the criminal justice field, our terminology is steady and so is theirs throughout the book.

Although some chapters could have been flushed out a little more, there is linear connection quantity and quality among the chapters. Content is effective applicable.

The text is broken down into small blocks within the titles. This makes for easy reading and following. Certain chapters are referenced in other chapters and it was easy to understand the thought process behind it. I do think, certain topics could have been more defined in terms of identifying more content for example sake.

The topics in this text are presented in a logical, clear an linear fashion, which is very helpful to the instructor and student. Looking specifically at the Wedding Cake Model as an example, the authors expressed clear descriptions, pictures and explanations of content. Other topics flow well also.

All images checked- charts, graphs, hyperlinks, gray-text boxes pink-text boxes and pictures are problem-free. Pictures such as examples of classical conditioning is animated and well-placed in such a way, a student can easily understand the concepts presented.

I found no grammatical errors in this text. The book is well written and formatted.

I found this textbook is not to be culturally insensitive or offensive. The examples and photos used of races, ethnicities and backgrounds are appropriate and relevant to the subject and content being presented. Considering multiple authors on this project, a good variety of perspectives are included in the text. The student learns from a varied perspective throughout the text.

Overall, good textbook, I plan to use it along with other resources.

Reviewed by Jennifer Dannels, Lead Instructor - Criminal Justice/Paralegal Studies , Northshore Technical Community College on 12/5/19

Considering this is an introductory course, I thought this textbook did a nice job of covering a vast amount of material. I really liked how the book covered policy - particularly how and why criminal justice policies are created and change. The textbook I am currently using does not cover fake news, myths, and how crime is portrayed in the media at all - so I am happy to see these topics covered here and I think my students will find these topics interesting as well.

While overall comprehensive for an introductory course, I did not see coverage of the following topics within each main category: (1) Police - their various duties including predicting crime through Compstat/crime mapping; 4th Amendment and how it relates to search/seizures and warrants; and police interrogations/Miranda warnings; (2) Courts - types of evidence, types of witnesses (lay and expert), and juries; (3) Corrections - eras of corrections and prison life/culture itself - such as prisoner's rights, security threat groups, discipline in prison, and grievance procedures. While I do think these topics should have been briefly mentioned, I do realize that other Criminal Justice courses cover these topics in great detail (i.e., Police Systems and Practices, Judicial Processes, and Introduction to Corrections). Thus, students will eventually cover these materials in great depth so these omissions do not necessarily concern me. However, I also would have like to seen a small section on drugs, terrorism, and cybercrime, in addition to a brief history of crime in the United States (i.e., prohibition and organized crime, increase in violent crime in 1960's/1970's, War on Drugs in 1980's, rise of white-collar crime and terrorism, etc.)

I also thought that some topics, while covered/mentioned, could have used just a bit more coverage - most notably, the pretrial (bail, arraingment, etc.) and criminal trial process itself. While briefly described in Chapter 1, I will probably spend a bit more time on this in my classes given that it provides a good overview of how the criminal justice system actually works. While this text dedicates a good amount of coverage to theory and policy, I thought it could have provided a bit more detail on the actual process itself. I also thought the "use of force" section was too short, but it would be easy enough for an instructor to find current examples in the news to discuss in class in more detail.

I am not aware of any substantive errors. Most errors I saw were grammatical and in the glossary (i.e., descriptions of new and older generation jails). Nothing major though.

This book has lots of references to current events which I think the students will find relatable. Of course, more relative events will continue to occur -- but the instructor will just have to be mindful of this fact and update as they teach the course. This is no different than with any other Criminal Justice textbook.

The writing was clear and to the point with lots of examples to help demonstrate concepts. Some reviewers found the text a bit too informal, but I think students will appreciate the straight-forward language.

The overall framework of each chapter was consistent, although the "voice" of the author differs between chapters. Some authors are more formal than others -- but I think it still flows nicely and works.

I really like how the chapters were divided up into smaller sections, making it easy to skip sections, add sections, or vary the order. Each section was also a relatively short size which makes it easier for students to identify the issues or put their notes into outline formats.

The topics are presented in a logical and clear fashion. Each chapter begins with learning objectives and critical thinking questions which could easily be turned into interesting assignments and class discussions.

I did not experience any interface or navigation issues. The Table of Contents made it easy to jump from section to section.

Overall, I did not see many grammatical errors (with the exception of a few minor grammar issues in the glossary).

The text was not culturally insensitive or offensive. While race and gender issues may not have been directly addressed in its own section, I think these issues can be easily inserted into other sections (i.e., police shootings, use of force, community policing, sentencing, death penalty, etc.).

Overall, I really like this text (more so than the book I am currently using), and I plan to recommend that my department adopt it. The writing is clear and will be easy for students to read and comprehend. I also think the examples and references to recent events will allow students to relate to the material and realize the significance of these events to their everyday lives. This textbook also includes several interesting assignments throughout the text that instructors can choose to assign (or not). I'm looking forward to developing my Intro to Criminal Justice course using this book. While some reviewers wished to see more supplemental material, the lack of it does not bother me. I have my own teaching style, and I like to create my own presentations/assignments/quizzes/exams anyway. This book gives me a great foundation on which to build.

Reviewed by Katie Cali, Instructor of Sociology and Criminal Justice , Northshore Technical Community College on 11/15/19

This textbook covers the major topics need for an Introduction to Criminal Justice course. Topics are not explained in deep detail, but seems to be decent descriptions for an introductory level course. I would like to see this textbook expanded to include a few more chapters, such as terrorism, cybercrime and drugs. Nonetheless, the book does seem to be written in a way that should be comprehensible for Intro-level students.

As far as I could tell from my readings, the information and content matter appears to be accurate; however, as stated above, the content could use a little extra clarity.

Currently, the textbook is up-to-date. As with all books, as new events emerge the book may need to be updated to accurately represent the issues in society. I like the "Current Issues" displayed in the text. This text would benefit from writing with inclusion to other races, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, etc. As a Sociologist with a Criminal Justice background, I have found the best way to discuss the CJ system is by presenting the various experiences from a variety of lifestyles. Nonetheless, the style of the textbook provides a relatively easy structure for making updates/additions to the text.

Academic jargon is explained enough to educate students in an introductory course, though some areas lack crucial details to ensure the understanding. As mentioned before, some of the examples and/or topics could use a little more detail or explanation to make the text have a higher clarity level. I find the style of the writing interesting for a textbook, as the authors refer to themselves in parts of the text. However, this style of writing may attract the readers attention while providing a connection between the book and the students in a way that other books cannot.

I find the textbook to be consistent, even if the writing style of the various authors are not consistent. The additional incepts and discussion topics help to promote a consistent structure for the text.

I find the modular structure of the textbook to be concise and beneficial to the instructors as well as the students. The clearly defined learning objective and the questions to ponder engage the reader and prepares the brain for the topic at hand.

I find this textbook to be well organized. The topics are presented in a logical and clear fashion. One may easily navigate themselves through the book with little to no struggle. Organized similar to other Introduction textbooks.

Throughout my use of this book, I did not find any major interface issues to be concerned about. Images were clear and organized and the book was very easy to navigate.

I did see a few minor grammatical errors. Majority of the issues were in the glossary. One more editing session would clear these issues right up.

During this review, I did not find culturally offensive or insensitive writing. However, I do feel this textbook needs to strength its level of inclusion, as mentioned earlier. This textbook seems to obviously be written from a white perspective and could use diversity to culturally enhance this text.

As a pioneer into the OER world, I believe this textbook is a great beginning, As with all pieces of work, there is definitely room to grow, which could enhance the overall experience from this text significantly. I plan to recommend this textbook to the department as a possible adoption.

Reviewed by Chris Palmore, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Louisiana at Lafayette on 11/11/19

The text does a good job of covering the main issues of the American criminal justice system. There are chapters for the main topics, including crime, measuring crime, policing, courts, and corrections. There is also an interesting section on victimization, which many texts do not cover. Missing potential chapters like drugs and crime, mental health and crime, terrorism, bias-motivated crimes, cybercrimes, and comparative criminal justice. There is a discussion of Public Policy, which is great and something that I have not seen in any introductory text so far.

I did not see any accuracy issues, minus a few grammatical errors.

The text's omission of key social factors related to crime (i.e., race, sex) hurt the overall rating of content relevance. However, the organization of the text makes it so additions can be made with ease. The current issues boxes will need to be updated as time goes on, but that is also something that can be done easily. Some of the references were specific to a state, so a more multi-state approach could enhance the impact of the text.

The writing is clear and easy to understand. Jargon and technical terms are defined in easy to understand language. Overall, the authors used simplistic language suitable for an introductory course in Criminal Justice.

Overall the writing and framework were consistent throughout the chapters. It was a little clear that different people wrote different chapters by writing style, but I'm not sure how much that would affect the overall consistency of the text or if students would notice such a thing. Each module is set up similarly, and the overall critical framework remains in each section.

The modularity of the text is a strong point. Each section can be broken down into smaller chunks and lessons. The flow of information was nice and it laid out clear learning objectives from the start of each chapter. I also thought the critical thinking questions at the beginning of each section were a nice introduction to each module and got me thinking about the material prior to reading the material.

I thought the text was logically organized and easy to follow. Similar to other introductory texts.

I really liked the interface of the text. All the sources and links worked on my PC, but I did not attempt to pull them up on my phone or tablet. Overall, the interface made it really easy to navigate. The table of contents opened up into sections, which made skipping through to relevant sections easy.

Minor grammatical mistakes and would benefit from some copyediting.

The text is inclusive and does not alienate groups or individuals with specific backgrounds, however, it also pushes some of these major issues aside.

I did not see any teaching resources available with the text. Although many professors already have some made up, having some come with the text ensures that all the information is relevant. I thought this was a pretty good introductory criminal justice text and am considering adopting this for my Summer 2020 course.

Reviewed by Ami Stearns, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Louisiana at Lafayette on 11/11/19

The textbook covers many similar topics as other introductory textbooks in the field, particularly in the areas of courts, corrections, and police. However, it lacks attention to "emerging crimes" (global terrorism, cybercrime, hate crime) and victimization. While some of these concepts are introduced, such as victim typologies in Ch 1, I believe emerging crimes and victimization should be stand-alone chapters. The Theory chapter does not prioritize or attend to feminist criminology, which should be added to the canon of Very Important Theories. Further, the book could benefit from either a chapter introducing concepts of intersectionality issues, or at least incorporate concepts of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and ability, as these identities relate to crime and punishment, among the existing content. The chapters are short and concise, packing in critical information along with relevant links to outside media, outside readings, critical thinking exercises, and incorporation of current events/news to bring relevancy to the content. Overall, I believe the book is comprehensive enough for an introductory level class, although I wish it had supplemental materials for instructors.

I did not see any factual errors, yet much of the content and examples are geared toward Oregon culture, laws, and customs, which I know little about. I'm not sure if this is a matter of Accuracy, but please, please, please do not link to Wikipedia. To me, this is the book's most significant drawback. Wikipedia is not used as an academic source for papers, it should not be used as even a source of information about people, places, or phenomena. This reliance on Wikipedia negatively impacts the validity of the entire textbook.

The incorporation of news items as examples and links to online media, along with attention to current events in the content, means this text is relevant and up to date. If I had to complain, the textbook authors should make the examples more inclusive of the national criminal justice system overall, rather than concentrating on Oregon. As far as longevity, I have concerns about web links that may change, and wonder if the book would be better served by including links for each chapter as part of supplemental materials, as it is far easier to update supplemental materials than an entire textbook. While it is difficult to publish a textbook that remains up to date without a tremendous yearly effort, yet this book will certainly be relevant for the next few years.

The text is very accessible for first year university students, but sometimes the writing is so casual, it would be better suited to, for example, a blog. I have gone back and forth on my opinion about this characteristic of the textbook's language. On one hand, I really do not like the casual writing because it may diminish the validity of the content. On the other hand, the casual writing does lend an air of having a conversation with the reader, rather than relying on traditional textbooks' standard one-way information delivery. After considering the pros and cons, I believe that the casual writing helps distinguish this textbook from others in the field that are extremely dry (and they are all, almost without fail, extremely dry), and that this should be considered a strength. It is a very different approach to communicating with students and I would be interested to assess students' reactions to the writing style.

The presentation of content is consistent among chapters, but I do notice that some of the writers are more casual than others, so that there are stylistic differences among chapters, though it is slight. For example, some chapters use the "I" voice and some do not. Perhaps this brings up a teachable moment in class, though. I often point out to students that textbooks are not created in a vacuum, but rather are a product of real people. Some authors structure the chapters differently, which may be problematic for students who need consistency.

The modules are self contained and very easy to read. A significant strength of this book are the short modules. These are beneficial to work with students' short attention spans.

The book is organized, logical, and clear. The organization of information is similar to many other introductory textbooks in the field.

The textbook is extremely easy to navigate. I did not see any distortion problems on my monitor. Distortion may occur on different monitors, or on an e-reader, etc.

There are a few errors throughout, mainly typos or missing punctuation. The textbook would benefit from more copy editing at some point.

I do not see cultural insensitivity in this textbook, however, as I mentioned at the beginning of my review, it would benefit from inclusion of matters related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. The individuals in positions of authority in the textbook photos are not always white, which has sometimes been a problem in older criminal justice textbooks.

I have decided to pilot this textbook next year in my introductory class. If I am able to update my review with information about student reactions to the textbook and my own impressions of its value and use, I will do so.

Reviewed by Jolene Sundlie, Sociology Instructor, Minnesota State University System on 10/27/19

This text does a great job of covering a great majority of topics one would find in a typical Introduction to Criminal Justice textbook. The book combines topics that might be covered separately in a 16-17 chapter textbook, which I think is great. Instructors can expand on the topics they choose. I do wish there was more coverage on specific types of crimes, and I did not see any inclusion of cyber crime at any point in the text.

I did not see any glaring errors or inaccuracies.

This textbook is extremely up-to-date. There are many sections labeled "Current Issues" and they are, in fact, current! My only concern is how often can/will this book be updated so it remains relevant.

I found the writing to be inviting and accessible and think my students at the community college level would agree. Terms are explained well and the book includes a glossary that offers concise definitions.

I found the content and style of writing to be consistent from chapter-to-chapter, even though the authors changed from section to section. Each chapter included boxes containing additional information and discussion questions or assignment ideas.

I really liked the way this book was divided into 10 chapters and within each chapter there were several numbered sections. This would make it much easier to break up reading in a larger chapter (e.g. Chapter 1) into sections, rather than by page number. If an instructor wanted to reorder the chapters, the material would still make sense.

This textbook follows the typical and expected organization of topics for an Introduction to Criminal Justice book. Some topics that would usually be found a separate chapters were combined under more robust chapter titles.

My only criticism is that I did not care for how references were cited. Sometimes, there was a link within the text and other times a footnote. I would prefer a consistent method. Though the links all worked fine.

I found no grammatical errors throughout the book.

I did not find any comments or references that I found to be insensitive or culturally inappropriate, but there is not much coverage of race or ethnicity other than in statistics.

I could not tell if there were any instructor resources for this book. Some Open textbooks have them, some do not, but it would be helpful if there was a clearer indication if there were any. I would prefer an academic book not use Wikipedia as a reference when many of us will not accept it from our students.

Reviewed by Sarah Fischer, Assistant Professor , Marymount University on 7/26/19

This book has fairly comprehensive chapters, but lacks a conclusion or any acknowledgement of what it leaves out (gender issues in CJ, cybercrime, comparative criminal justice, etc.). It isn’t that the book needs a chapter on each of these... read more

Unfortunately, this book contains a few substantive errors (such as stating murder is the only crime for which one can receive the death penalty in the United States).

The text was finished in 2019 and consequently is very timely. It is most relevant for CJ classes in Oregon, as many of the examples and links are Oregon-specific (many pages link to State of Oregon police agency application websites, for example).

Overall, very clearly written.

Consistent in terms of terminology. The framework of the chapters varies by author—some of the co-authors here include links to great resources (podcasts, television shows, and TED talks) that could easily be the basis of assignments. Other include almost no links to outside resources.

Very easily divisible.

Well-organized chapters. Some chapters repeat information from other chapters. Chapters do not flow into each other or have ideas/themes that carry across chapters (depending on how instructor wants to use the text, could be useful or not useful).

Some image distortion in charts, graphs, and text.

Grammar and formatting errors appear in every chapter.

The book is aimed at readers with no or positive previous experiences with police and/or the criminal justice system as a whole. If that is not the experience of your students, I would recommend looking at the specific chapter of this book you intend to use—the chapters vary in their inclusivity.

Reviewed by Geraldine Doucet, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice/Juvenile Justice, Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA on 4/27/19

Extensive and thorough coverage of the three criminal justice segments, the functions, operations, interdependence and interrelation of the three are clearly addressed from the onset. The trends, current challenges, court cases, as well as Constitutional, legal, moral, social, political issues relevant in the criminal justice system are scholarly presented. The manner in which this textbook is written, actually ‘engages with’ and ‘talks with’ the students throughout the book using statements like— “let us go back to our example (p. 18) …. or “Imaging sitting in the college classroom with (p. 17)…”). Then there are the Internet links presented throughout the textbook making further connection to the discussions at hand. These activities are presented within the discussions and not merely at the end of the chapter presentation as is the case with some textbooks. This allows the student to stay engaged with the topic of discussion as it is occurring, thereby making the knowledge powerful and impactful.

The book’s appearance is not as attractive as its content, which is rich with various illustrations, exercises, critical thinking challenges, and other activities that engages the student throughout the book. The content is easy reading both in terms of the knowledge shared as well as on the readers’ eyes. The organization of the textbook is one of its’ greatest attraction. The chapter discussions are well integrated with examples and Internet sources that illustrate the point(s) being made. Moreover, the chapters are short yet powerful with knowledge that is presented in a clear, concise, and synchronized manner.

The language used throughout the book is applicable for an introductory level course in criminal justice/criminology that makes this book student-friendly and easy to read. The use of language is crucial in any discipline, and the authors did an excellent job in their communicative delivery. In addition to the glossary at the end of the textbook, each chapter presents an illustrative use of the key concepts for students’ understanding. The modular presentation of the material does not overwhelm the student with information. By instead, allows students to absorb an adequate amount of information per chapters/sections. The materials presented in the book are powerful, descriptive, well balanced with knowledge, pictures, illustrations, activities, and especially critical thinking that engages students in the discussions.

The textbook is well organized; starting each chapter with learning objectives followed by thought provoking “knowledge probes” or “assessments activities” leading into the discussion(s). Writing (i.e., a written reaction to a situation…p.45 or p.187) and critical thinking (i.e., critical thinking questions or “what do you think” moments…p. 160) skills are highly demanding in a Criminal Justice career/field and this textbook presents opportunities to engage the students in doing both. Our students upon graduating will need scholar writing, legal writing, and some technical writing skills; therefore, any form of writing is of value.

What is in the textbook seems accurate. The problem is what is also accurate may be missing from the Textbook. More of the popular criminological theories in Criminal Justice could be more inclusive, as restated in the Clarity section of this Review.

It looks like the textbook does not address cybercrime, terrorism, nor environmental crimes. Also, there is no mentioning of hate crimes. All these types of crime are prevalent today in America and throughout the world. You may want to add these types of crimes in the revised textbook or future textbook. The textbook can also benefit and Index section, which I also mentioned under the Organization section of the Review.

In addition, it may not be a bad idea to add a brief section/caption on the growth and expansion of criminology since its origin. Discuss the subcategories of criminology, such as penology, victimology, peacemaking criminology (i.e., restorative justice), convict criminology, and green criminology (i.e., environmental crime and harm). Explain how these came about. This information can be presented either in Chapter 1-Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology or Chapter-5-Criminological Theory, of the Textbook.

Chapter 6-Recruitment and Hiring Websites for Future Careers—This chapter could have been more inclusive by addressing a brief history on changes in the qualifications of police officers, such as educational requirements, the introduction of on-going professional development, and/or the growth of specialization due to technology and globalization. The presentation of the Website listing of law enforcement agencies could have been accompanied by more relevant ‘TEXT’ information.

Lastly, in Chapter 10—Juvenile Justice and particularly 10.6—Due Process in the Juvenile Court the textbook acknowledged due process related landmark court cases from 1966 to 1976. The authors may want to update the due process information on juvenile matters especially since there have been over 16 more landmark cases since that time.

The clarity issue in this textbook has more to do with the presentation of materials, such as p. 201 the “Father of modern law enforcement”, yet his name is nowhere on that page where his picture is. One would have to find it on a page before. This is the same with various Tables or Charts (i.e., Mendelsohn’s Typology of Crime Victim which is mentioned as a title on page 57 and the Chart itself is presented on page 58. There is also the presentation of the positivist school of criminology with limited acknowledgement of Cesare Lombroso contributions and no picture of him; yet, there are pictures of the other men mentioned. There is no acknowledgement of Cesare Lombroso being credited with being the “Father of criminology” and why. This is somewhat missing critical information. Chapter 5 is the chapter that probably needs to be improve with greater content information and illustrations, when possible, on theories that are popular in criminal justice, like Robert Agnew’s general strain theory; Gottfredson & Hirsch’s self-control theory/general crime theory; the developmental theories, such as latent theory by Moffitt or others, and life course theories (Aged-graded Theory) by Sampson and Laub.

The picture on page 340, which is labeled “People Incarcerated in the U.S.” and the same picture on page 353 (i.e., labeled “Correctional Control by Type 1975-2016) are the same, However, on page 353 the caption underneath the picture says 'Correctional Control by Type 1975-2016', with no years are being shown. It this a mistake or is this how it is meant to be?;

Another strength of this textbook is the use of a modular approach to present the materials. This approach is manageable and self-directed, which makes it easier for students to read and absorb the knowledge. Given the fact that criminal justice/criminology are interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary studies, the modular approach is excellent. The integration of knowledge is more effective and successful. This is great for the students’ course enrichment, which is what every author/textbook should strive to achieve. It is certainly what every instructors want--for students to READ the BOOK.

Except for grammatical errors and a few suggested additions needed, the organization structure of the textbook is good. There are some problems with the flow or transition of materials when referring to pictures, tables, and/or charts. They are not always synchronizing perfectly with each other. Lastly, the addition of an Index section in the back of the book would be useful.

Excellent job combining/blending the criminal justice and criminology knowledge together without sacrificing one discipline over the other. If there is one exception, it would be Chapter 5 when blending the criminology theory that are more popular in criminal justice as oppose to sociology or psychology, for instance.

Several minor grammatical errors that needs corrections, such as font size corrections (p. 37). Revisit pages 40 and 41 with the exception of the material written in the gray boxes (or illustration captions) the words on page 40 is the exact same as the words on page 41. However, the numbered footnotes are different (8 & 13). The word “Misdemeanor” could be placed on page 56 (to include the work with the definition. Bring the caption “Mendelsohn’s Typology of Crime Victims from page 57 to page 58—with the chart—it makes for a better connection of the material. Do the same with Table 1 title (Criminal Justice Frames and Examples of Narratives) on page 114, move it to page 115 so that the Title is over the Table?

There is room for some improvement by showing greater diversity beyond black and white. This textbook is about America’s criminal justice system; let that also reflect all culture/subcultures in this great country

Overall, this is a very good beginner’s textbook for an Introduction Course and can further be useful as a supplementary and resource book as the student continues to pursue their criminal justice/criminology education. Chapter 4-Criminal Justice Policy is uniquely presented as a separate chapter. This is significant because often policy in Criminal Justice is a topic that is given a low priority or put-on-the-backburner in an Introduction course, nonetheless is vital. Nearly everything about criminal justice impacts policy, whether it involves, reform, re-entry, community corrections, sentencing, to mention a few. Chapter 4 is a great selling point for this textbook. This textbook will be read by the student because of how the material is presented—student friendly, simple, easy reading, which is significant. As an instructor, I want a book that my students would pick up to read because it is quick and easy to read with clear understanding. Moreover, the student learning outcomes postulated in the chapters can be achieved using this textbook. Except for the minor criticism offered, I like the textbook. It is my opinion that it well suited when working with students enrolled in dual-credit programs (with criminal justice as a college major) as well as an entry-level college student majoring in criminal justice.

Reviewed by Raymond Delaney, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Southern University at New Orleans on 4/18/19

The book addressed the key areas of the criminal justice system. Each component (courts, cops, and corrections) were reflected of key elements essential to the operation of the justice system. Please provide more detail information in a nuanced form. For someone who may not be familiar with the operation of the system or an incoming majoring student, they may have more questions than answers for their curiosity. Subjects are briefly addressed and then the section abruptly ends. Definitions could be more defined, most of the key terms had one very brief but not concise definition.

Information in each section appears appropriate. The authors may want to consider providing more substantive and clarifying depth to the subject matter. After reading certain areas, I was looking for a follow-up example or closure to the subject.

Attempt to provide key cases that change public opinion. I reviewed the authors' insight on Michael Brown and the Ferguson incident. However, the author could have drawn parallels from other landmark incidents such as Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin. Consider including information that addresses the lack of reporting and tracking by law enforcement on excessive force. No mention of black lives matter existed.

Clarity rating: 1

Clarity would be an area or need for major or significant improvement.

The text is consistent in the subject matter. However, it is also consistently lacking depth.

The text is broken into readable and identifiable sections. Easy flow and follow through.

This section would be of great strength. The structure and flow of the text would align to most or traditional introductory textbook. The organization of the subject matter or key elements were notable.

No significant or major issues of concern.

The authors overuse too many pronouns. Perhaps, using clear subject-verb agreements as it relates to the topic could help minimize overly used terms such as “This.”

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

Cultural relevancy and sensitivity would be an area of strengthening. The text focuses heavily on the negative occurrences that affect African Americans. Rightfully so, since African Americans have faced such bigotry, hatred, and racism as an ethnicity. However, the authors may want to find leaders of significant roles in criminal justice. Search and include positive situations or stories that African Americans could be of a positivist in the criminal justice system.

I commend the authors attempt to provide a resource available to fragile collegiate students. However, the text overall lack clear and concise subject matters. The authors may want to focus on providing depth. If I were to include this in my syllabus, it would need additional resources or references that could potentially appear burdensome to an incoming freshmen/sophomore student. Please highlight major key cases and/or events that shaped and formed form public opinion and outcry.

Reviewed by Hollie Macdonald, Lecturer, Longwood University on 4/11/19

The book covers all areas and ideas briefly. The book could explain some concepts in more depth, and also explain them in a less casual way. The glossary is good but not extensive of all concepts and also lacks accurate punctuation. read more

The content is accurate but the examples are not always clear. The general idea that the author is trying to convey comes through in most examples but some of the examples leave the reader asking further questions that are never answered. The examples are great but seem like they should be added in a lecture to supplement the book, not in the book itself.

The content is up to date, uses data and resources that are relevant. If updates are needed, they will not be difficult to add.

Clarity rating: 2

The text is written clearly and with accessible prose but the author refers to themselves, "I", many times which I do not think should occur in a college-level textbook. She gives examples based on her own experience which is fine but makes the book sound like a transcribed lecture, not necessarily an academic piece.

The text is consistent but also seems very causal in its presentation of concepts.

The text is easily readable and is broken up into logical sections. The flow is good. The author does give examples throughout and makes an effort to separate examples from the concepts and chapter content.

The book is organized in a clear and logical way. The book's structure is similar to all other introduction to criminal justice textbooks that I have read and used in my courses. The book touches on policy and theory which is important in introduction to criminal justice classes because that is the material that the students will study in depth towards the end of their undergraduate education and in graduate school.

The interface was fine, no problems. The table of contents was helpful and navigation was smooth.

The glossary has inconsistent punctuation. Sentences started with the word "Because". Grammar is casual at best. Does not come across to the educated reader as professional grammar and word usage. This might be intentional to connect with less educated readers (potentially first year students taking an introduction course).

The author uses first person throughout the book which undermines the "seriousness". When students are reading this material we want them to feel as if the information is important and coming from an objective source. The book gives good information but does not seem objective with examples and stories about the author.

Overall, the book looks promising. It covers basic concepts that set the foundation for learning but there are things that could be improved. As an undergraduate level instructor in the field, who has read many similar textbooks, this one seems casual in its prose and explanations. The book could be great for a high school criminal justice class but I would not recommend as the only textbook in a college level class. If this book were to be used at the college level it would need to be accompanied by supplemental materials that provide a clear more professional explanation of the concepts.

1: Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology
2: Defining and Measuring Crime and Criminal Justice
3: Criminal Law
4: Criminal Justice Policy
5: Criminological Theory
6: Policing
8: Corrections
9: Community Corrections
10: Juvenile Justice

Ancillary Material

About the book.

There is a dearth of OER textbooks in Criminology and Criminal Justice, which made creating this textbook all the more exciting. At times we faced challenges about what or how much to cover, but our primary goal was to make sure this book was as in-depth as the two textbooks we were currently using for our CCJ 230 introduction course. The only way we were willing to undertake this project as if it was as good, or better than the current books students read. We have had very positive feedback about the required textbooks in the course but consistently heard how expensive the books were to buy. We also needed to ensure we met the learning outcomes outlined by SOU for a general education course, as well as the state of Oregon, to make sure this textbook helps students meet those outcomes.

About the Contributors

Alison S. Burke is a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Southern Oregon University. She earned her Ph.D. from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and her MCJ from the University of Colorado Denver. While in Denver, she worked with adjudicated youth in residential treatment facilities and group homes. She has published a variety of journal articles and book chapters related to juvenile justice, delinquency, and gender, and her primary research interests involve women and crime, juvenile justice and delinquency, and pedagogy in higher education. Her most recent book is titled Teaching Introduction to Criminology (2019).

David E. Carter joined the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department in 2008. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. Dave served in the U.S. Army for 8 years as a linguist prior to attending school. He has published works in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency in the area of lifecourse research, as well as in the Corrections Compendium, where he wrote about U.S. inmate populations. He also works with local agencies (in a consultative role) providing evidence-based practices and evaluations for correctional programs in the area of effective interventions and evidence-based programming. At SOU, Dave has helped facilitate the Lock-In event and annual that provides students with a hands-on experience of the justice system.David E. Carter joined the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department in 2008. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. Dave served in the U.S. Army for 8 years as a linguist prior to attending school. He has published works in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency in the area of lifecourse research, as well as in the Corrections Compendium, where he wrote about U.S. inmate populations. He also works with local agencies (in a consultative role) providing evidence-based practices and evaluations for correctional programs in the area of effective interventions and evidence-based programming. At SOU, Dave has helped facilitate the Lock-In event and annual that provides students with a hands-on experience of the justice system.

Brian Fedorek earned his doctorate at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania in Criminology. He has taught classes in Terrorism, Comparative Criminal Justice, Theories of Criminal Behavior, and introductory courses. His research interests include media and crime, criminological theory, and criminal violence. He has served on the board of the Western Association of Criminal Justice.

Tiffany L. Morey has an almost three-decade career in the law enforcement arena. She retired as a Lieutenant from a police department in Las Vegas, Nevada. Her expertise is in the law enforcement, crime scene investigation (CSI), and forensics fields. During her tenure in policing in Las Vegas she worked in patrol, the crime prevention division, community services, recruitment, special events, problem-solving unit (first ever unit/substation for her department in a high gang and drug area), undercover prostitution and narcotics stings, search warrant service assistance, mounted unit departmental work, CSI (crime scene investigator), forensics, Sergeant and Sergeant field training program and master trainer, Lieutenant and Lieutenant field training program, and finally Acting Captain. During this time, she was also chosen and paid by an independent firm to travel the country and conduct oral board interviews and assessment center testing and recruiting for law enforcement agencies and fire departments. She developed a ground-breaking class to assist candidates in the law enforcement hiring process and is now under contract to publish the related textbook/study guide. Tiffany continues to operate in the field of CSI and forensics as an expert investigator and witness on violent crime. She also runs a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) business, offering citizens and owners of businesses CPTED reviews to ensure the safety of their homes and buildings. Finally, in her free time, she runs SOAR Wildlife Center (SoarWildlife.org), which is a non-profit organization, that rehabilitates sick, injured, or orphaned fawns and other baby mammals.

Lore Rutz-Burri is a 1982 graduate of Southern Oregon State College (now SOU) with a Bachelors of Arts degree in Criminology and Political Science. After graduating, she lived in Southern Austria until 1984. Upon returning to the states, she earned an M.C.J (Master’s degree in Criminal Justice) from the University of South Carolina. In 1985 she started in a Ph.D. program at the University of Maryland, College Park, but early on decided she would rather pursue a law degree. In 1989 she graduated “order of the coif” with her doctor of jurisprudence (JD) from the University of Oregon School of Law. Following law school, Lore clerked for the Superior Court of Alaska in Fairbanks for one year and then worked for 5 years as a deputy district attorney in Josephine County, Oregon. There, she prosecuted a variety of crimes, but mostly assault cases. In 1995, she began teaching criminology and criminal justice at SOU. Since 2015 she has been a part-time Circuit Court judge in the Josephine County courts. Lore has been married for over 27 years to her husband, Markus (a Swiss national). They have two sons– Severin (who studied at SOU and majored in psychology) and Jaston (who studied at U of O and majored in philosophy). She has both case books and introductory text on criminal law and criminal procedure.

Shanell Sanchez joined the Criminology and Criminal Justice department at Southern Oregon University in Ashland, Oregon in 2016. Prior to that, Shanell was an Assistant Professor in Criminal Justice at Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction, Colorado. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln in Sociology in 2012. Her research and teaching interests are centered around social change and justice, inequality, and comparative crime and justice.

Contribute to this Page

Finding Humanity in Our Criminal Justice System

I t was dark and windy the evening of Sunday, September 8, 2019, when Luis Alberto Quiñonez—everyone called him Sito—and his girlfriend, Ariana Bassard, left his girlfriend’s mother’s new apartment in San Francisco’s Mission District. Sito noticed that one of the tires on his car seemed low on air. After reinflating it at a service station, Sito made a quick, hard right into heavy traffic, which caused his girlfriend Arianna to drop her cell phone underneath her seat. They pulled over around the corner so she could retrieve it.

A young man in a hooded sweatshirt stepped up to the car’s driver’s-side window, raised an automatic pistol to the glass, and started shooting . By the time the shooter finished, 21 cartridges littered the car, inside and out. Seventeen of those bullets had cut through Sito’s neck, shoulder, chest, and stomach. Arianna survived. Sito did not.

Sito was my stepson’s half-brother. His murder forced my family to grapple with the cyclical tragedy of gang violence, vengeance, and an indifferent criminal justice system. Whenever I reflect on the circumstances of his death, one question keeps coming back to haunt me: when a life is extinguished by street violence, how does a victim’s family heal?

This question isn’t new to me, but the personal context is. As a professor of Anthropology and Public Affairs at Princeton, my work focuses on patterns and cultures of American urban violence. For a very long time, I have been aware of the terrible effects of incarcerating young people. But it wasn’t until Sito’s murder that I really understood how worthless a victim’s family can be made to feel in their encounter with the criminal justice system—especially if, in the past, the system has treated them or their loved ones as perpetrators.

This humanity and care are rarely available to those caught up in this country’s justice system, especially the juvenile justice system. Sito was one of these young people: when he was 14 years old, Sito was accused of murdering a former classmate. He spent five months in the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center (otherwise known as juvenile hall) while the district attorney decided whether to try him as an adult. Sito was lucky: a private investigator uncovered surveillance footage of the attack, showing clearly that Sito did not kill the young man. The DA dropped the charges against Sito, and he was released.

Read More: Youth Prisons Don’t Work. Here’s What Does.

But despite the clearing of Sito’s name, it was far from cleared in a practical sense—and just about everyone who goes through the system can tell a similar tale. In the shadow of a wrongful accusation, the accused and their families often bear the stigma of a “criminal” label both with the public and in their personal lives. Wrongful accusation typically results in severe post-traumatic stress , and that murder allegation would haunt Sito for the rest of his short life. Five years after he was accused of this murder, Sito was murdered by the young man’s little brother, who could not be convinced that Sito wasn’t responsible for his brother’s death.

This tragic cycle of violence—played out in my family here, but typical for families across the U.S. dealing with the pervasiveness and pain of urban violence—has forced me to think about accountability in new ways. It is my firm belief that the people whom the system accused of crimes, wrongfully or not, need to be humanized at every step of the process—from the moment a news story about a crime breaks to when the gavel sounds and a verdict is announced.

Humanizing both victims and perpetrators of violence may seem like a simple and obvious strategy. Of course, it isn’t: Violence provokes compassion for the victim, and oftentimes, rage against the perpetrator. This is especially true within the criminal justice system, where one or the other emotion is considered an appropriate response—but never both, and never at the same time. The system is designed to crush complexity because of this binary, which is then relentlessly reduced to slogans and soundbites on social media.

Read More: The Path to Redemption for Our Criminal Justice System

But what if we could embrace the grey areas of this binary rather than diminish it, and instead, promote healthy debates regarding imprisonment? Because in doing so, we might begin to recognize that people who commit crimes—or are even just accused of doing so—are human beings worthy of empathy and care just as much as crime victims.

To help the public grapple with hot button issues like crime and violence, our institutions must dedicate themselves to reducing misinformation about crimes existing—and spreading—in the first place. Schools, for example, should promote media literacy programs to educate individuals about verifying information before sharing. Social media platforms should continue to enforce strict policies against the spread of false information, flagging misinformation while empowering users to report incorrect information. And responsible reporting by the news media would ensure that when someone like Sito is exonerated of a crime, official sources, such as police statements and government announcements, amplify this news. The result would be a more sober, equitable, and humane approach to criminal accountability.

Before Sito’s murder, I did not know that I could experience compassion and rage at the same time. Yet in writing about his life and death, I came to see that our society needs a form of accountability that blends these seemingly contradictory emotions. As an alternative to criminal punishment, restorative justice allows for that possibility.

In some settings, victims and offenders communicate directly with one another so that the perpetrator can acknowledge fault and offer some form of restitution to the victim. The victim, in turn, may forgive the perpetrator, bringing a sense of closure to the crime. The perpetrator may also become more willing to embark on a journey of self-improvement. In other settings, community stakeholders publicly discuss their grief , and the perpetrator receives their messages later. Whether the victim’s communication with the perpetrator is private and direct or public and indirect, the goal is for the victim and the perpetrator to understand each other better—or at least stop thinking of each other as enemies. Researchers have proven that restorative justice reduces imprisonment (and therefore costs to the system), provides greater satisfaction for both victims and offenders, and decreases recidivism rates.

Restorative justice is as much a mindset as it is a collection of standardized techniques. Its core principles include public accountability and a commitment to investigating the root causes of wrongful acts. Can we borrow something of this model, and apply it to the criminal justice system, more broadly? To reject complexity and yearn for purity, is, after all, to turn away from the intricate nature of the human situation. We do so at our peril—and at the expense of young lives that could be so much more.

More Must-Reads From TIME

The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
How Far Trump Would Go
Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
6 Compliments That Land Every Time
Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Guide to the U.S. Criminal Justice System

Written by: Nalea J. Ko | Edited by: Cassie Muniz | Last Updated: April 2024

The criminal justice system includes the courts, corrections, and law enforcement.
Full-time law enforcement accounts for more than 700,000 U.S. workers.
The federal court includes 94 district courts, 12 circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security comprise the federal law enforcement.
The first prison system in the country opened in 1891.

What Is the Criminal Justice System?

The criminal justice system in the United States consists of law enforcement, the court system, and corrections. These three subsystems encompass private and government agencies at the state, federal, and local levels, all of which work together to maintain public safety.

Each subsystem handles a different responsibility. Law enforcement does as their name implies: they enforce the law by making arrests. At the court level, defendants undergo the trial process that includes the opening statements, presenting of evidence, closing arguments, and sentencing. Convicted persons undergo rehabilitation as part of the correction process.

This comprehensive guide explores the complex network of subsystems within America’s criminal justice system.

Law Enforcement in the United States

At every level, the law enforcement branch of the United States criminal justice system attempts to serve the public by promoting safety and order. Law enforcement officers investigate suspected criminal activities and refer suspected criminals to courts.

The three main levels of law enforcement include federal, state, and local (e.g., county and municipal) policing. Each level tends to works independently within its own jurisdiction.

Each law enforcement level maintains internal hierarchies of individual departments and ranked officers who supervise and report to one another. To learn more about the structure, varying roles, and goals of each of these law enforcement levels, continue reading.

Federal Law Enforcement

The federal branch of law enforcement includes thousands of full-time officers working within dozens of federal agencies. The two main departments that employ law enforcement officers are the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Notable agencies associated with each department include:

DOJ Agencies

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Drug Enforcement Administration
U.S. Marshals Service
Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Federal Bureau of Prisons

DHS Agencies

Transportation Security Administration
Secret Service
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Coast Guard

Local and state law enforcement handle the majority of crimes in the U.S., but the federal government steps in where states and municipalities lack jurisdiction, such as when perpetrators commit crimes on federal property .

More specifically, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves all rights and powers for the states that are not expressly delegated to the federal government. States reserve the right to establish and enforce laws to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

Thus, federal police power typically extends only to situations involving:

Civil rights
Immigration
Offenses affecting interstate commerce
Crimes committed across state lines

State Law Enforcement

Most states operate law enforcement initiatives through agencies and departments extending from a few central government entities. For example, a state’s department of public safety generally sees to the services and duties of state police and highway patrol.

Each state has an office of the attorney general, which handles the criminal and civil detective work of a state’s bureau of investigation and works as the state-level equivalent of the FBI.

A variety of other departments within state governments can operate their own divisions of law enforcement, especially for security purposes. The most common of these include:

State capitol’s capitol police force
Universities employing campus police
State hospital security staff

When considering the role of state police, people commonly think of highway patrolmen, but the purpose and goals of state law enforcement extend beyond pulling over speeding cars.

State police conduct enforcement activities and investigations that fall outside the jurisdiction of a county sheriff’s office. Duties beyond highway patrol and enforcement of traffic laws may include:

Protecting government officials
Arresting suspects
Providing emergency assistance
Protecting crime scenes
Interrogating or interviewing people

Local and Municipal Law Enforcement

Among the various sections of the criminal justice system, local law enforcement is the branch that a majority of people are most familiar with. Unlike federal and state law enforcement branches, local law enforcement operates within specific counties, cities, and communities.

The structure of local law enforcement can vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction size. A small town — like Ellendale, Delaware or Little River, Kansas — may employ a single officer or town marshal, whereas major cities like New York City have a large police department spread throughout multiple neighborhood precincts.

Counties often establish a sheriff’s department and county police force with a wider jurisdiction and/or greater focus on jail and court services, rather than patrolling a specific town or neighborhood.

Depending on the size of a local police department, the hierarchy can include up to a dozen different positions. A police commissioner — also called the chief of police — stands at the top of the chain of command. This position is followed by an assistant chief, deputy chief/commissioner, inspectors, colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, detectives, and officers or deputies.

Court and Legal Systems in the United States

The United States criminal justice system consists of courts at the federal and state levels. Federal and state courts are independent of one another and differ in several key areas defined by their jurisdiction and the types of cases they hear.

State courts receive a broad jurisdiction, hearing cases regarding:

Family disputes
Broken contracts
Traffic violations
Criminal activities (assaults or robberies)

In contrast, federal courts commonly hear cases in which the U.S. is a legal party:

Federal law or Constitutional violations
Copyright and patent law
Maritime law

U.S. courts work closely with law enforcement and corrections in scenarios such as deciding whether or not to hear a case, sharing intelligence, asking law enforcement officers to testify during a trial, engaging in presentencing investigations, and determining alternative sentencing options.

US Court of Appeals and District Court Map

State Courts

The vast majority of criminal and civil legal cases in the U.S. are handled by the massive state court system . Each state divides its courts into a structure with three main tiers : trial courts, appellate courts, and state Supreme Courts.

Trial courts include municipal courts (limited jurisdiction). Typical cases include:

Traffic court
Misdemeanor crimes
Preliminary felony hearings

County courts (larger jurisdiction). Cases may relate to:

Probate law
City ordinance violations

State trial courts (largest jurisdiction). Cases may relate to:

Property disputes
Major felonies

When a losing party disagrees with a trial court’s decision, they can file an appeal. This prompts the trial court to send the case record to a state appeals court for consideration. To make a final ruling decision, the appellate court does not conduct a trial, instead relying on case documents, trial transcripts, exhibits, and attorneys’ written arguments.

An appellate court can either affirm the original decision, reverse the original decision, or send the case back to a trial court for further action.

A legal party unhappy with the ruling of their appeal can take the case a step further by requesting a final appeal with the state’s Supreme Court. At this level, appeals remain discretionary. The court decides whether or not to hear a case; if it declines, the lower court’s decision is considered final.

A state Supreme Court functions similarly to lower appeals courts. It reviews case documents, files, written briefs, and oral arguments rather than holding a full trial.

Upon reviewing a case, the state Supreme Court either affirms a decision, reverses it, or sends a case back to trial. Legal parties who do not receive their desired appeal result can strive for a final appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court .

Federal Courts

Three main levels make up the U.S. federal court system: 94 district courts, 12 circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. District courts conduct civil and criminal trials within the federal system, with one or two assigned to each U.S. state or territory. Trial cases commonly heard in district courts include those dealing with federal laws and/or those involving parties from two different states.

Like the state court system, legal parties who disagree with the decision of their district court trial can file for an appeal. A circuit court acts as the first stop in the federal appeals process. Some appealed cases receive decisions based on a review of court records and written briefs alone; however, many are also selected for oral arguments, in which attorneys can briefly present spoken arguments before a panel of judges.

The circuit court decision remains final unless the case is sent back for trial or legal parties seek an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a petition for a “writ of certiorari” — simply put, a request for judicial review.

Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests for case review, but selects only a small fraction to hear. Cases most commonly heard by the Supreme Court include:

Cases with an unusually significant legal principle
Cases where at least two federal courts differ in the interpretation of a law
Cases interpreting the Constitution

Once the U.S. Supreme Court delivers a decision, it can be overturned only by a rarely granted request for a rehearing, a future Supreme Court ruling, or an amendment to the Constitution itself.

Corrections in the United States

While law enforcement and the courts work to identify and intercept people involved in criminal activity, the corrections system serves a variety of simultaneous functions :

Keeping criminal populations separate
Enacting punishments for wrongdoing
Promoting rehabilitation for the incarcerated

The U.S. corrections system is the largest system of its type in the world. Though home to less than 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. holds more than 20% of the world’s prisoners — the highest global per capita rate of incarceration among founding NATO countries, according to 2021 incarceration data.

The U.S. corrections system contains multiple state and federal corrections systems that act independently, although they follow similar procedures and protocols. Prisons can be publicly or privately operated, and state and federal corrections systems most commonly interact when transferring inmates. Corrections systems utilize incarceration, community service, parole, and probation to punish and/or rehabilitate criminals.

Incarceration entails the confinement of a person in a prison, and daily prison life severely restricts that person’s freedoms. In contrast, those sentenced to community service or those on parole or probation live beyond a prison cell.

If assigned to community service by a court, an individual typically completes a number of unpaid work hours for a nonprofit. Parole and probation both involve supervision and specific rules/guidelines regarding travel limitations, curfews, and required drug tests. Parole typically occurs when an individual gains early release from prison, while probation occurs before an individual enters prison.

The U.S. holds a high rate of recidivism, meaning the likelihood that a convicted criminal will return to prison is relatively high. This most commonly occurs because people violate the terms of their parole, and perhaps because the American rehabilitation system has inherent flaws.

There hasn’t been a large-scale recidivism survey conducted yet this decade, butfor 2019, BackgroundChecks.org places the U.S. recidivism rate of 70% within five years of initial incarceration.

Tribal Law in the United States

Federally recognized Native American tribes possess a form of sovereignty that preserves the inherent rights of each tribe to form their own governments, make and enforce civil and criminal laws, collect taxes, and establish and regulate tribal citizenship.

Some of the first federal recognitions of tribal sovereignty and law began in the early 19th century with a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the 1832 case of Worcester v. Georgia .

Though this case did not prevent the relocation of the Cherokee Nation from its ancestral homeland, it served as a foundation for the principle of tribal sovereignty, with the majority opinion calling tribal nations “distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights.”

While federal Native American law concerns relationships between tribal, state, and federal government, tribal law governs a tribe’s members and territories. Tribal governments and tribal justice systems function in much the same way as state systems.

Tribal law is enforced by tribal law enforcement, and tribal courts that possess civil jurisdiction over tribal members and nonmembers who reside or do business within federal reservations. In 1978, the criminal jurisdiction of tribal courts became limited to violations of tribal law by tribal members only ( Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe ). Along with operating their own law enforcement and courts, Native American reservations house more than 90 corrections facilities .

Today, tribal governments, laws, and areas of jurisdiction often function in partnership with their local and state counterparts, working together to promote public safety and economic development. In some cases, however, the division between tribal and state jurisdiction can cause difficult legal complications .

How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?

A standard series of steps — including investigation, charging, initial hearing, discovery, plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, and appeal — helps streamline the process from law enforcement to the courts to corrections. The sections below explain those steps.

1) Entry Into the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice process begins when someone commits a crime. Law enforcement officers on patrol can witness a crime directly, or be dispatched to respond to a witness’s call about a potential crime.

When officers arrive on the scene, the second step involves filing a crime report, which includes logging information about the time, location, and details of the incident by speaking with witnesses and/or victims.

This process must be completed as accurately and precisely as possible, as it builds a foundation that can impact the subsequent investigation and arrest of a suspect. It may also determine who gets called to testify in a trial and the sentencing process.

After obtaining a crime report, law enforcement can begin the process of investigation, arrest, and/or citation. If the suspect remains on site, officers can provide a citation with a date to appear in court or they can arrest the suspect.

Otherwise, officers must pursue an investigation and attempt to identify a suspect and collect enough direct or circumstantial evidence to warrant an arrest. If officers complete an investigation, discover a suspect, and collect appropriate evidence, they can make an arrest or provide a citation, depending on the nature of the crime and other factors.

2) Prosecution and Pretrial

The decision to formally charge a person with a crime rests with a court prosecutor, who forms this determination by examining all assembled evidence and a suspect’s criminal history. If a prosecutor does not find a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that suspect is released. Alternatively, if a prosecutor decides to file formal charges, they determine the severity of the alleged crime (e.g., a murder charge versus a manslaughter charge).

If a suspect faces charges, an initial hearing will typically take place within 72 hours. A first court appearance involves arraignment, whereby the court informs a defendant about their legal rights and the charges they face.

The defendant responds to arraignment by entering a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest (allowable in some jurisdictions). A guilty or no contest plea means the defendant receives a sentence without going through the trial process. A not guilty plea means a case proceeds toward trial.

Upon a plea of not guilty, the defendant and court make defense attorney arrangements, if this has not already been done, and the judge determines if the defendant will be held or released. Depending on the severity of the charges and other factors, defendants may be given the option to post bail.

3) Trial Process

Rather than going to trial, a majority of cases in the criminal justice system are resolved by a plea agreement. Arranged cooperatively between the prosecution and defense, a plea agreement means the defendant agrees to plead guilty to one or more charges in exchange for a recommendation of a reduced sentence, a lesser degree charge, or having one or more charges being dropped entirely.

If parties do not reach a plea agreement, the case proceeds to trial.

Defendants reserve the right to select a jury trial (decided by a group of civilians) or a bench trial (decided by a single judge). A majority of defendants select bench trials. Reasons for this may include a speedier process — no need for jury selection, minimized opening/closing statements, lower mistrial risk — and/or concerns that a jury may judge the case based on emotion rather than on evidence/the law.

In either trial method, the prosecution and defense present their arguments and witnesses testify and face cross examination. Trials close with the judge or jury deciding on a verdict. Not guilty verdicts lead to the defendant’s release, while guilty verdicts lead to a sentence. If a jury cannot deliver a verdict due to disagreement or other reasons, such as misconduct or illness, a mistrial is called and a new trial can be arranged.

4) Corrections

To determine the appropriate sentence for a guilty defendant, a judge can examine sentencing guidelines provided by the United States Sentencing Commission .

For situations involving less serious crimes and shorter sentence lengths, judges may decide to sentence convicted persons to probation or parole rather than incarceration.

Probation or parole come with supervision and other restrictions. For example, individuals may face limitations on where they can live and travel, requirements to hold steady employment or attend school, and/or requirements to attend therapy or rehab. Violating probation or parole terms can land an offender in jail or prison.

Though controversial, a sentence of capital punishment remains legal in 27 states. However, this sentence can only be handed down by the unanimous decision of a jury, and it is only applicable in cases of capital offense (e.g., murder and/or assassination, treason, and espionage).

Careers in Criminal Justice

Criminal justice careers encompass many law enforcement , legal , and correctional roles , including jobs that only require a high school diploma and on-the-job training and those that require years of college study.

A majority of criminal justice professionals obtain at least a bachelor’s degree. However, many schools offer criminal justice degrees at multiple levels, including master’s and doctoral programs for students interested in higher-level management, academia, or research.

Criminal justice professionals tend to be detail oriented, inquisitive, and highly organized and possess a natural affinity for leadership and problem solving. The list below details several criminal justice-related careers.

Police and Detectives

Police officers work to ensure public safety, patrol assigned areas, and respond to emergency and nonemergency calls. Detectives gather facts and evidence for criminal court cases. Although a high school diploma and police academy training may meet minimum job requirements, some departments prefer candidates with a college degree.

Median Salary (2023): $74,910
Projected Growth Rate (2022-32): +3%

Correctional Officers and Bailiffs

Correctional officers supervise individuals in jail awaiting trial or serving sentences in prison. Bailiffs work as law enforcement officers within a courtroom where they maintain order, assist judges, and provide general courthouse security.

A high school diploma is typically the minimum education requirement, though federal prisons may require a bachelor’s degree. Some states require correctional officers to hold state certification.

Median Salary (2023): $53,290
Projected Growth Rate (2022-32): -7%

Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists

Probation officers and correctional treatment specialists help to rehabilitate law offenders and reintegrate them back into society after being released. Correctional treatment specialists conduct psychological tests to assess inmates and they also administer other tests, such as drug screenings. A bachelor’s degree usually provides the prerequisites to secure a career as a probation officer or correctional treatment specialists.

Median Salary (2023): $61,800

Forensic Science Technicians

Forensic science technicians, or crime scene investigators , mostly work in local government, but also state government agencies, testing laboratories, and medical and diagnostic labs. At crime scenes, forensic science technicians collect evidence such as blood, footprints, and weapons. In the lab, forensic science technicians analyze physical and biological evidence.

Median Salary (2023): $64,940
Projected Growth Rate (2022-32): +13%

Lawyers conduct legal research and analysis, interpret legal concepts, and provide advice and representation during criminal or civil court cases and private legal disputes. Clients may include people, businesses, and government agencies. Those who want to become lawyers must typically hold a doctor of jurisprudence degree and pass a state bar exam.

Median Salary (2023): $145,760
Projected Growth Rate (2022-32): +8%

Sociologists

Sociologists study society and human behavior by examining processes by which groups, cultures, and organizations interact. Criminologists are sociologists who specialize in the study of crime, including its causes and effects. Finding employment as a criminologist typically requires at least a master’s degree.

Median Salary (2023): $101,770
Projected Growth Rate (2022-32): +5%

Postsecondary Teachers

Postsecondary instructors in this field teach criminal justice courses at colleges and universities. They create the lesson plans, following department curriculum, and also grade homework and exams according to set rubric. This job may also require publishing academic papers.

At the community college level, you can work with a master’s degree. However, you usually need a doctorate in criminal justice to get a tenured postsecondary position. Master’s degree-holders can also become adjuncts at four-year colleges.

Median Salary (2023): $69,030

Frequently Asked Questions About the Criminal Justice System

What is the criminal justice system in simple terms.

The criminal justice system adheres to policies and practices that exist to uphold justice and keep people safe. The criminal justice system operates to prevent crime and punish law offenders under the governing jurisdiction. The criminal justice system is the complicated network of legal subsystems at the federal, local, and state level in the United States.

How has the criminal justice system changed over time?

The criminal justice system and the policies that influence mass incarceration shifted during the War on Drugs that began nearly 50 years ago. In 2023, politicians enacted policies to reduce mass incarceration, including reforming sentencing for youth defendants, increasing parole eligibility, and changing policies to reduce punitive practices put in place during the War on Drugs. Some states are working on restoring voting rights to former felons.

What is the definition of “justice” in the criminal justice system?

Justice as it relates to the criminal justice systems means ensuring that all people receive fairness in the legal process. The United States Constitution protects every citizen’s right to justice. According to the Sixth Amendment, all citizens have the right to a lawyer and a fair and speedy trial in front of an impartial jury.

What is the purpose of the U.S criminal justice system?

The U.S. criminal justice system exists to enforce laws but also to protect all citizens and society. The saying goes, “crimes against an individual are crimes against the state.” The criminal justice system outlines penalties for criminal behavior with the aim of deterring crime. When the courts find criminals guilty, judges sentence them to prisons or jails for rehabilitation.

Is the FBI part of the criminal justice system?

Yes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates under the U.S. Department of Justice. The FBI often works with other law enforcement agencies to share intel, especially in cases of national security threats. The Director of National Intelligence oversees the operations of the FBI, which reports intelligence to local U.S. attorneys.

Take the next step toward your future in criminal justice.

Explore schools offering programs and courses tailored to your interests, and start your learning journey today.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice — Criminal Justice

Essays on Criminal Justice

Criminal justice essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: reforming the criminal justice system: challenges, progress, and the road ahead.

Thesis Statement: This essay examines the challenges within the criminal justice system, the progress made in recent years, and the ongoing efforts required to reform and ensure a fair and equitable system for all.

Introduction
The Criminal Justice System: Structure and Key Components
Challenges and Injustices: Racial Disparities, Mass Incarceration, and Sentencing
Reform Movements: Criminal Justice Reform Advocacy and Legislation
Alternatives to Incarceration: Restorative Justice and Rehabilitation
Police Reform: Building Trust and Accountability in Law Enforcement
The Role of Technology: Advancements in Criminal Justice Practices
Conclusion: Towards a More Just and Equitable Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 2: Criminal Justice and Civil Rights: Analyzing the Intersection, Historical Struggles, and Contemporary Debates

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the intersection of criminal justice and civil rights, tracing historical struggles for equality, and examining contemporary debates regarding policing, incarceration, and civil liberties.

Civil Rights Movements: Historical Context and Achievements
Law Enforcement and Civil Rights: Cases of Police Brutality and Protests
Mass Incarceration: Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color
Criminal Justice Reforms: The Role of Advocacy and Grassroots Movements
The Fourth Amendment: Searches, Seizures, and Privacy Rights
Contemporary Debates: Balancing Security and Civil Liberties
Conclusion: Upholding Civil Rights within the Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 3: International Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Comparative Analysis of Legal Systems and Global Challenges

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comparative analysis of criminal justice systems worldwide, highlighting variations in legal approaches, international cooperation, and shared challenges in addressing transnational crime.

Legal Systems: Common Law, Civil Law, and Hybrid Systems
International Law Enforcement: Interpol, UNODC, and Global Cooperation
Transnational Crime: Cybercrime, Human Trafficking, and Drug Trafficking
Human Rights and Criminal Justice: International Treaties and Agreements
Case Studies: Comparative Analysis of Criminal Justice in Selected Countries
Challenges of Globalization: Addressing Legal and Jurisdictional Issues
Conclusion: The Quest for Effective Global Criminal Justice Solutions

Matthew Desmond’s Eviction: a Critical Analysis

The controversy of juvenile crime punishment, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Case Study of Jay Wilds: a Critical Analysis

Wrongful convictions in criminal justice system, racial discrimination in the us criminal justice, the role of the jury system, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Victimology: Concept, Definition, Paradigms and Paradoxes

Problems and reforms needed: how to improve the criminal justice system, corruption in a criminal justice system, the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The U.s. Criminal Justice System and Its Phases

The criminal justice system in the uk, personal writing: criminal justice career choices, american criminal justice system: the different stages of an arrest, mass incarceration, criminal justice system, and racial inequality in the united states, from toxic friends to criminal justice, intelligence, probation and prisons in criminal justice, accountability of criminal activity by minors, the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, police brutality in the us: history and ways to improve, the crime of theft through the marxism theory and merton’s strain theory, exclusionary rule in america: pros and cons, why capital punishment should be legalized, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, criminal careers: how they are produced, the importance of youth diversion & current conditions of diversion programs in victoria, the effectiveness of rehabilitation vs harsh punishment, dostoevsky’s view of submission, racial bias in the u.s. criminal justice system, difficulties faced by the criminal justice system in responding to sex offenders.

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions.

Law enforcement agencies, usually the police. Courts and accompanying prosecution and defence lawyers. Agencies for detaining and supervising offenders, such as prisons and probation agencies.

Goals of criminal justice include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims.

Relevant topics

Forensic Science
Mass Incarceration
Juvenile Justice System
Criminal Behavior
Juvenile Delinquency
Criminal Procedure
Criminology
Criminal Investigation
Criminal Profiling

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Accountability for criminal justice: selected essays, additional details.

33 East Tupper Street , Buffalo , NY 14203 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

From police to parole, black and white Americans differ widely in their views of criminal justice system

Black Americans are far more likely than whites to say the nation’s criminal justice system is racially biased and that its treatment of minorities is a serious national problem.

In a recent Pew Research Center survey , around nine-in-ten black adults (87%) said blacks are generally treated less fairly by the criminal justice system than whites, a view shared by a much smaller majority of white adults (61%). And in a survey shortly before last year’s midterm elections , 79% of blacks – compared with 32% of whites – said the way racial and ethnic minorities are treated by the criminal justice system is a very big problem in the United States today.

Racial differences in views of the criminal justice system are not limited to the perceived fairness of the system as a whole. Black and white adults also differ across a range of other criminal justice-related questions asked by the Center in recent years, on subjects ranging from crime and policing to the use of computer algorithms in parole decisions.

Here’s an overview of these racial differences:

Black adults in the U.S. consistently express more concern than white adults about crime.

Concerns about violent crime, gun violence are higher among blacks than whites

In last year’s preelection survey, three-quarters of blacks – compared with fewer than half of whites (46%) – said violent crime is a very big problem in the country today. And while 82% of blacks said gun violence is a very big problem in the U.S., just 47% of whites said the same.

Blacks are also more likely than whites to see crime as a serious problem locally . In an early 2018 survey , black adults were roughly twice as likely as whites to say crime is a major problem in their local community (38% vs. 17%).

That’s consistent with a survey conducted in early 2017 , when blacks were about twice as likely as whites to say their local community is not too or not at all safe from crime (34% vs. 15%). Black adults were also more likely than whites to say they worry a lot about having their home broken into (28% vs. 13%) or being the victim of a violent crime (20% vs. 8%). However, similar shares in both groups (22% of blacks and 18% of whites) said they actually had been the victim of a violent crime.

Some of the most pronounced differences between blacks and whites emerge on questions related to police officers and the work they do.

A survey conducted in mid-2017 asked Americans to rate police officers and other groups of people on a “feeling thermometer” from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the coldest, most negative rating and 100 represents the warmest and most positive. Black adults gave police officers a mean rating of 47; whites gave officers a mean rating of 72.

Blacks are also more likely than whites to have specific criticisms about the way officers do their jobs, particularly when it comes to police interactions with their community.

More than eight-in-ten black adults say blacks are treated less fairly than whites by police, criminal justice system

In the Center’s survey earlier this year , 84% of black adults said that, in dealing with police, blacks are generally treated less fairly than whites. A much smaller share of whites – though still a 63% majority – said the same. Blacks were also about five times as likely as whites to say they’d been unfairly stopped by police because of their race or ethnicity (44% vs. 9%), with black men especially likely to say this (59%).

Stark racial differences about key aspects of policing also emerged in a 2016 survey . Blacks were much less likely than whites to say that police in their community do an excellent or good job using the right amount of force in each situation (33% vs. 75%), treating racial and ethnic groups equally (35% vs. 75%) and holding officers accountable when misconduct occurs (31% vs. 70%). Blacks were also substantially less likely than whites to say their local police do an excellent or good job at protecting people from crime (48% vs. 78%).

Notably, black-white differences in views of policing exist among officers themselves. In a survey of nearly 8,000 sworn officers conducted in the fall of 2016, black officers were about twice as likely as white officers (57% vs. 27%) to say that high-profile deaths of black people during encounters with police were signs of a broader problem, not isolated incidents. And roughly seven-in-ten black officers (69%) – compared with around a quarter of white officers (27%) – said the protests that followed many of these incidents were motivated some or a great deal by a genuine desire to hold police accountable for their actions, rather than by long-standing bias against the police. (Several other questions in the survey also showed stark differences in the views of black and white officers.)

The death penalty

A narrow majority of Americans (54%) support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to a spring 2018 survey . But only around a third of blacks (36%) support capital punishment for this crime, compared with nearly six-in-ten whites (59%).

Racial divisions extend to other questions related to the use of capital punishment. In a 2015 survey , 77% of blacks said minorities are more likely than whites to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. Whites were divided on this question: 46% said minorities are disproportionately sentenced to death, while the same percentage saw no racial disparities.

Blacks were also more likely than whites to say capital punishment is not a crime deterrent (75% vs. 60%) and were less likely to say the death penalty is morally justified (46% vs. 69%). However, about seven-in-ten in both groups said they saw some risk in putting an innocent person to death (74% of blacks vs. 70% of whites).

Parole decisions

Certain aspects of the criminal justice system have changed in recent decades. One example: Some states now use criminal risk assessments to assist with parole decisions. These assessments involve collecting data about people who are up for parole, comparing that data with data about other people who have been convicted of crimes, and then assigning inmates a score to help decide whether they should be released from prison or not.

A 2018 survey asked Americans whether they felt the use of criminal risk assessments in parole decisions was an acceptable use of algorithmic decision-making. A 61% majority of black adults said using these assessments is unfair to people in parole hearings, compared with 49% of white adults.

Voting rights for ex-felons

Blacks more likely than whites to favor allowing people convicted of felonies to vote after serving their sentences

States differ widely when it comes to allowing people with past felony convictions to vote. In 12 states, people with certain felony convictions can lose the right to vote indefinitely unless other criteria – such as receiving a pardon from the governor – are met, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures . In Maine and Vermont, by contrast, those with felony convictions never lose the right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. Twenty-two states fall somewhere between these positions, rescinding voting rights only during incarceration and for a period afterward, such as when former inmates are on parole.

In a fall 2018 survey , 69% of Americans favored allowing people convicted of felonies to vote after serving their sentences. Black adults were much more likely than white adults to somewhat or strongly favor this approach (83% vs. 68%).

Black Americans
Criminal Justice
Discrimination & Prejudice
Race & Ethnicity
Race, Ethnicity & Politics
Racial Bias & Discrimination

John Gramlich is an associate director at Pew Research Center .

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Perspective
Open access
Published: 30 April 2024

Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience

Arielle Baskin-Sommers ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-0508 1 , 2 ,
Alex Williams 1 ,
Callie Benson-Williams 1 ,
Sonia Ruiz 1 ,
Jordyn R. Ricard ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5039-0455 1 &
Jorge Camacho 2

Communications Psychology volume 2 , Article number: 38 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Neuroscience

The footprint of the legal system in the United States is expansive. Applying psychological and neuroscience research to understand or predict individual criminal behavior is problematic. Nonetheless, psychology and neuroscience can contribute substantially to the betterment of the criminal legal system and the outcomes it produces. We argue that scientific findings should be applied to the legal system through systemwide policy changes. Specifically, we discuss how science can shape policies around pollution in prisons, the use of solitary confinement, and the law’s conceptualization of insanity. Policies informed by psychology and neuroscience have the potential to affect meaningful—and much-needed—legal change.

Introduction

On any given day there are more than 1.9 million people behind bars in jails or prisons in the United States 1 . Nearly half of all adults living in the United States experience incarceration in their family 2 . Most who encounter the criminal legal system are dealing with problems related to poverty and mental illness, which worsen with arrest and incarceration 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .

With the hope of trying to shrink the footprint of the criminal legal system on American families, over the past two decades, much discussion has focused on the applicability of psychology and neuroscience to the legal system. These discussions are rife with conjecture around the notion that psychology and neuroscience can detect liars, objectively determine criminal responsibility, and predict who will engage in violent behavior. Unfortunately, the framing of psychology and neuroscience as being able to transform the law by focusing on the individual reflects a misrepresentation of the science and the standards of law.

Psychology and neuroscience provide probabilistic, not deterministic, estimates of phenomena in the aggregate. While psychological and neuroscientific findings may be valid for a given group in general, they may not apply to a particular individual within that group (often referred to as the group-to-individual problem). Thus, psychological and neuroscientific techniques cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that distinct brain structures or abnormalities affect the mental state of a particular individual at the time of the crime, that they will undoubtedly engage in criminal conduct in the future, or evidence of mitigation at the sentencing phase above and beyond other less expensive and more reliable tools (e.g., assessing family history or exposure to violence).

While there is much skepticism about the use of psychology and neuroscience in the legal system, these disciplines do have the potential to affect meaningful change in how the legal system operates and in the outcomes it produces. In this perspective piece, we will argue that psychological and neuroscientific findings can be applied to and improve aspects of the legal system through policy changes. We will focus on how science can shape policies that affect those who are incarcerated in jails and prisons, and by extension society at large. There is a substantial body of research delineating the negative impact of incarceration on individuals (e.g., negative effects on health, mental health, job prospects, educational attainment, etc.) 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 and their families 2 , 10 . Here, we select three aspects of where and who is incarcerated and detail how policies surrounding these aspects can or should be influenced by emerging findings in psychology and neuroscience. Specifically, we highlight how the issues of pollution in prisons, the use of solitary confinement, and the restrictions of the legal concept of insanity could be reshaped by integrating scientific findings.

Criminal legal system aspects of interest

Pollution: toxins and noise.

The United States continues to incarcerate more people than any other country. Over 6000 facilities hold almost 2 million people. The long reach of incarceration substantially reduces the chances of a formerly incarcerated person obtaining an education, stable employment, owning a home, or living above the poverty line 5 . Further, exposure to toxins and noise pollution within jails and prisons in the United States will likely have substantial negative effects on the individual’s psychological and brain health.

There are documented violations, ranging from inadequate sewage and waste disposal to poor water quality and the presence of toxins such as asbestos, manganese, and lead, in jails and prisons throughout the United States 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . For example, since 2000, over a quarter of California’s state prisons have been cited for major water pollution problems 13 . Rikers Island, a jail in New York City, was built atop a toxic landfill in 1932 17 , 18 that in 2011 the New York City Department of Correction reported was still emitting poisonous gases 19 . Since 2020, at least 23 jails have been either proposed or constructed on toxic and contaminated lands 16 . Further, regulations that would protect the general population against toxin exposure often are not in place for jails and prisons (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency designated that most parts of prisons and juvenile detention centers are zero-bedroom dwellings [i.e., residential dwellings where living areas are combined with sleeping areas] and therefore are not subject to the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule) 20 . Exposure to such toxins causes health problems, including cancer, hypertension, and neurodegeneration, as well as mental health problems, including impulsivity and aggression 21 , 22 .

Similarly, noise pollution is an issue in jails and prisons 23 . Sources of noise in prisons are unpredictable and come from multiple streams. These facilities often are built using hard, reflective materials that heighten noise pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines acceptable levels of noise in residential areas, hospitals, and schools as 45 dB(A) 24 . However, the American Correctional Association set noise standards for correctional housing to not exceed 70 dB(A) 25 . Long-term exposure to sound above 50 dB(A) has been shown to cause serious health issues, such as increases in stress hormones, cardiac problems, and hypertension 26 , 27 .

Research in psychology and neuroscience provides key findings that support the claim that exposure to toxins and noise in prisons can negatively impact physical and mental health. With regard to toxins, research in non-human animals and humans shows that exposure to chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and manganese cause serious harm. Specifically, documented harms include damage to dopaminergic neurons (which regulate motivation, reward, and habit learning 28 ) and increase beta-amyloid protein plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (which characterize Alzheimer’s Disease) 29 . Additionally, exposure to such toxins result in deficits in the structure and function of the hippocampus (a region of the brain important for memory and learning 30 ), increase neuroinflammation, and produce general poorer brain health 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 . Furthermore, high concentrations of neurotoxic chemicals and persistent pollutants have an undisputed impact on cognition and are associated with deficits in general cognitive functioning, IQ, executive functioning, language, and memory 21 , 22 , 36 , 37 . Of utmost relevance for the legal system, toxin exposure in the short-to-mid-term is linked to heightened levels of impulsivity, hyperactivity, and aggressive behaviors 11 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 .

Noise pollution and chronic noise exposure also have long been considered an ecological stressors that impact psychological and neural functioning. Prolonged noise exposure causes clinically impairing distress and stress hormone dysregulation 27 . Studies with non-human animals and humans link chronic noise exposure, particularly unpredictable noise, to damage to the central nervous system, the generation of pathological neurofibrillary tangles (which is related to Alzheimer’s disease), and poorer tissue health in the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex (a region related to self-control), and amygdala (a region important for emotion processing and regulation) 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 . These neural alterations appear to persist even after noise exposure stops, suggesting both short- and long-term neurological impacts due to chronic noise exposure.

There are clear connections between pollution, toxin and noise, and physical and mental health problems. These pollutants have the potential to negatively impact neural regions responsible for basic emotion, cognition, and behavioral control. Using findings from psychology and neuroscience to understand the effects of toxin and noise pollution across species necessitates improvements in the ecology of jails and prisons.

A significant problem with current jail/prison environmental policies lies in the oversight of facilities and the enforcement, or lack thereof, of policies intended to ensure environmental safety. Frequently, jail and prison facilities are constructed in areas where significant ecological risk factors exist and require substantial remediation efforts to ensure safe occupancy, but these efforts either fail to materialize or are abandoned before completion 15 , 47 . The result has been exposure and vulnerability to serious health and safety risk factors like toxins or ecological disaster 48 . The failure to complete mandated remediation can be compounded by reduced access to legal remedies by incarcerated populations 49 .

To shrink the footprint of this aspect of incarceration, policymakers should prioritize two strategies. First, they should redouble their efforts to enforce existing laws and regulations that govern applicable environmental standards and ensure that remediation efforts are completed. Second, they should adopt a principle that no policy that limits movement, fraternization, occupational activities or contact with outside environments/persons should be issued without an evidence-based accounting of the harms associated with that policy, including strategies for addressing those harms 50 . With sufficient will and attention to these problems, there is reason to believe that conditions and outcomes within jails and prisons can be substantially improved.

Solitary confinement

Solitary confinement refers to the physical and social isolation of an individual in a cell for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day. The cells typically are sparse, consisting of a steel door, a bed, a toilet, and a sink. Loud, unpredictable noise permeates the space that is no bigger than 6 feet x 9 feet 51 , and many cells lack natural light. People are in solitary confinement for periods that range from days to weeks, months, years, or even decades 51 . In 2021, approximately 48,000 individuals were held in solitary confinement 51 . Ten percent of people in solitary had been held for three years 51 . One may reasonably presume that the severity of solitary confinement would tend toward its sparing use, reserved only for the most egregious and dangerous offenders. However, the reality is that people can be placed in solitary confinement for various reasons, including for minor disciplinary infractions or for their safety 52 . The latter holds true for those deemed to be particularly vulnerable to victimization within incarcerated populations, including LGBTQIA persons, pregnant persons, and those with mental illness 51 . Although isolation for one’s protection can be voluntarily requested by an incarcerated person, jails and prisons can exercise their discretion to involuntarily isolate someone when officials determine that they cannot otherwise ensure that person’s safety, resulting in involuntary confinement that is largely indistinguishable from more punitively-motivated solitary confinement.

Research on solitary confinement includes qualitative accounts of incarcerated persons’ experiences and empirical studies examining the relationship between this aspect of incarceration and safety, mental health, and criminogenic risk. While the qualitative accounts, as well as popular media sources and theory-based writings from scholars, document the harrowing effects of solitary on individuals 53 , 54 , the empirical evidence supporting the negative effects of solitary on safety, mental health and criminogenic risk is more mixed. Some studies fail to detect effects of solitary confinement on individual behavior and mental health 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 . Other studies document significant negative effects of solitary on incarcerated people’s physical and mental health 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , particularly in terms of anxiety, psychotic symptoms, sensory arousal, and behaviors that effect mortality by any or unnatural causes (e.g., suicide) 57 , 64 . Additionally, there is evidence that being housed in solitary confinement, even for a week, can change alpha frequencies measured by EEG 57 , 69 . The U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges that solitary confinement can worsen existing mental illnesses and trigger new ones 70 .

The study of solitary confinement is understandably very difficult. Some studies cited above lack appropriate methodological controls (e.g., randomization, comparison groups), were conducted in small samples, and/or were the result of litigation possibly introducing bias into the method 71 , 72 . Unequivocal empirical evidence for concluding that the practice of solitary confinement in jails and prisons is uniformly negative is lacking, leading some scholars 55 , 57 to suggest caution in developing policy based on an incomplete science. However, there is a more substantial evidence base on the negative effects of solitary conditions in research with non-human animals and humans outside of the jail/prison context. While research in laboratories or in other institutional setting is not identical to incarceration-based solitary, there is a strong basis for comparing the effects of physical isolation and the deprivation of basic experiences.

Numerous studies with non-human animals explore what happens to the brain and behavior when subjects are physically isolated, deprived of resources, and are deprived of sensory information. These studies document trends including the expression of hyperactivity, altered responses to stressors, cognitive impairments, increased aggression, and alterations in mesolimbic dopamine functioning (which is important for learning and goal-directed behaviors) 73 , 74 , 75 . Rats in isolation also experienced lasting changes in psychological (e.g., aggression or fear of new situations), cognitive (e.g., declines in mental flexibility), and neural (e.g., reduced prefrontal cortex volume, decreased cortical and hippocampal synaptic plasticity, or alteration in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system) functioning as compared to rats in stimulating or complex environments 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 .

Similar patterns are found in some human studies, particularly those involving youth exposed to institutional settings characterized by deprivation of interpersonal contact. In one longitudinal and randomized study of children monitored through the Bucharest Early Intervention Project ( https://www.bucharestearlyinterventionproject.org/about-beip ), youth with histories of institutional residence had indicators of significantly worse brain health and atypicalities in neural structure, function, and communication compared to non-institutionalized youth 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 . Further, youth experiencing psychosocial deprivation display deficits in memory and executive functions compared to non-institutionalized youth 87 , 88 . The randomized design of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project provides some of the strongest causal evidence of the impact of isolation on development, with lasting effects.

Together, extant non-human and human research serve as evidence that psychological and neural differences are either generated or exacerbated by conditions of isolation. Solitary is not only painful in itself but also “undermines people’s sense of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningfulness … reduces pro-social behavior, and impairs self-regulation” 89 . Research across disciplines, then, provides a clear foundation that, on average, solitary confinement or similar conditions is physically and psychologically harmful.

In 2016, President Obama adopted a recommendation to end solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons. However, in 2023, 11 states still have no limits on the use of solitary confinement for juveniles, and just under half the states have passed laws that narrow the use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities 90 . In 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill to ban solitary confinement in federal prisons 91 . To date, however, similar bills have not passed.

The footprint of solitary confinement, including deleterious psychological and neural effects (above and beyond just incarceration), has been argued in the courts to represent an Eighth Amendment violation that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (see arguments from Ashker v. Brown ) 92 , 93 . Solitary confinement should be used only for brief periods and as a very last resort. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 94 — known as the Mandela Rules—condemn the use of solitary for people with mental and physical disabilities; such rules should be mandated in the United States across federal and state levels. They would serve to protect not only the incarcerated individual, but also the facility staff and society at large.

Redefining the legal concept of insanity

The U.S. legal system is continuously confronted with the need to adjudicate, assess, and treat people with mental illness 95 , 96 , 97 . How the law defines mental illness can have a substantial impact on how individuals who enter the system are judged and handled. For instance, in the United States, prevailing legal doctrines, including under the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted by 20 states, dictate that individuals may be considered less responsible if they can show that “at the time [their criminal conduct was] a result of mental disease or defect” indicating that the person “lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of [their] conduct or to conform [their] conduct to the requirements of law” 98 , 99 , 100 , and therefore they can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. A successful determination of not guilty by reason of insanity can then trigger a therapeutic intervention via placement in a forensic mental health center (i.e., justice-involved treatment setting) over a punitive intervention via incarceration in a traditional prison.

However, the insanity defense is rarely used in practice because it is very difficult to demonstrate legal insanity 101 . Additionally, some legal policies greatly limit who even qualifies to present this defense. For example, the Model Penal Code’s insanity defense excludes disorders characterized by repeated criminal or antisocial conduct. Here, we argue that the disconnect between legal conceptualizations of insanity on one end and psychological and neuroscientific understandings on the other can lead to the inadequate acknowledgment of many mental health problems in the criminal process.

One of the difficulties in referring to insanity in legal proceedings is the disconnect between terms used in the law and how they would be considered in psychology/neuroscience. For example, legal policies related to insanity refer to “mental defect” or “defect of reason” as a premise for questioning criminal responsibility 98 . In the law, there is no clear definition of what is meant by these specific phrases. In psychology and neuroscience, we might operationalize these phrases as an aberration in cognition and emotion that undermine accurate perception, interpretation, and/or reaction to information. This operationalization provides a biopsychology basis for understanding an individual’s conduct 102 . As another example, “disease of the mind” is noted in some insanity doctrines 98 , again without a clear definition. In psychology and neuroscience, we might operationalize this phrase as brain-based pathology resulting from various causes (e.g., injury, genetics, environmental stress) and that is characterized by identifiable signs or symptoms. In this case, a biopsychological definition would specify the type of evidence needed to initiate a defense based on insanity. As a result of bridging the gap between the language of the law and science, individuals with disorders where psychological and neuroscientific evidence provides a clear basis for disruptions that undermine cognition, affect, and behavior should 103 , 104 , without question, be eligible to put an insanity defense. However, the lack of a clear, objective, evidence-informed legal standard for identifying insanity precludes this outcome.

A shift in the legal policy around insanity would provide a scientific-based basis for determining the groups of people who are eligible for such a defense. It is then up to courts to determine if there is clear evidence that the specific factors played a role in an individual’s behavior. At this time, though, the courts cannot properly make these determinations without the ability to conduct a frank assessment of any intersectionality between mental illness and criminality. Unfortunately, the prevailing legal standards around insanity preclude these very assessments based on ill-defined terminology and exclusion of certain disorders. By widening the potential eligibility for an insanity defense based on scientific evidence, many people currently ensnared in the legal system may qualify for special protections under the law and might need to be mandated to treatment. Further, psychological treatments that specifically target the neural basis of these cognitive and affective psychological differences already exist, such as cognitive training programs that target attentional/other cognitive biases, emotion regulation strategies, or behavioral treatments that target reward hypersensitivity 103 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. Broadening the scope of individuals who may be eligible for consideration under insanity doctrines could drastically reshape how mental illnesses are handled in the legal system, perhaps reducing the current footprint of a punitive system and shifting the focus to a system that more properly considers the role of mental health problems in some people’s behavior. If done correctly, this shift should feasibly improve safety outcomes, both individually and systemically, through deliberate intervention against underlying psychological motivators of behavior.

Psychological and neuroscientific findings are compelling as they apply to the impact of pollution and solitary confinement on behavior and the brain. Psychological and neuroscientific findings that challenge our understanding of ‘insanity’ raise questions about the handling of mental health problems in the current legal structures. Using research grounded in psychology and neuroscience in each of these aspects of the legal system overcomes some of the limitations outlined above with regard to the ecological fallacies and deterministic assumptions often made when applying evidence to the criminal legal system--instead of focusing on the individual, we can apply science to inform policy changes that affect groups of individuals (see Fig. 1 for summary).

Summary of criminal legal system aspects of interest and policy recommendations based on psychology and neuroscience research.

In a landscape that often looks plagued by injustice, lacks an empirical evidence base, and imposes a tremendous cost on individuals and society both in terms of crime and punishment, it is imperative to look for alternative ways of integrating psychology and neuroscience findings and improving policies. If implemented appropriately, these robust psychological and neuroscientific findings have the tremendous potential to affect meaningful—and much-needed—legal change in the United States today.

Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. Prison Policy Initiative https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html (2023).

FWD.us. Every Second: The impact of the incarceration crisis on America’s families https://everysecond.fwd.us/ (2019).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. About criminal and juvenile justice. https://www.samhsa.gov/criminal-juvenile-justice/about (2022).

Western, B. Incarceration, Inequality, and Imagining Alternatives. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 651 , 302–306 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/ (2023).

Massoglia, M. & Pridemore, W. A. Incarceration and health. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41 , 291–310 (2015).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Western, B., Braga, A. A., Davis, J. & Sirois, C. Stress and hardship after prison. Am. J. Sociol. 120 , 1512–1547 (2015).

Harper, A. et al. Debt, incarceration, and re-entry: a scoping review. Am. J. Crim. Justice 46 , 250–278 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Haney, C. Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. Prison J. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512448604 (2012).

Sundaresh, R. et al. Exposure to family member incarceration and adult well-being in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open 4 , e2111821–e2111821 (2021).

Gottschalk, L. A., Rebello, T., Buchsbaum, M. S., Tucker, H. G. & Hodges, E. L. Abnormalities in hair trace elements as indicators of aberrant behavior. Compr. Psychiatry 32 , 229–237 (1991).

Toman, E. L. Something in the air: Toxic pollution in and around U.S. prisons. Punishm. Soc. 14624745221114826, https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221114826 .

Prison Ecology Project. Facts https://nationinside.org/campaign/prison-ecology-project/facts/ (2023).

Nigra, A. E. & Navas-Acien, A. Arsenic in US correctional facility drinking water, 2006-2011. Environ. Res. 188 , 109768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109768 (2020). People who were incarcerated in the Southwestern United States from 2006-2011 were at disproportionate risk of exposure to elevated drinking water arsenic (a potent carcinogen) and related disease.

Bernd, C., Mitra, M. N., Loftus-Farren, Z. & Truthout. America’s toxic prisons: the environmental injustices of mass incarceration, https://truthout.org/articles/america-s-toxic-prisons-the-environmental-injustices-of-mass-incarceration/ (2017).

Mahoney, A. & Truthout. Across the midwest, counties are building new jails on toxic land, https://truthout.org/articles/across-the-midwest-counties-are-building-new-jails-on-toxic-land/ (2022).

City of New York. History of DOC, https://www.nyc.gov/site/doc/about/history-doc.page .

Porter, E. S. Camera, Inc. T. A. Edison, Paper Print Collection, and Niver. Panorama of Riker’s Island, N.Y., https://www.loc.gov/item/00694387/ (1903).

New York City Department of Correction. Rikers Island Cogeneration Plant. (2011).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Are prison facilities and juvenile detention centers built before 1978 considered target housing? https://www.epa.gov/lead/are-prison-facilities-and-juvenile-detention-centers-built-1978-considered-target-housing (2023).

Lanphear, B. P. The impact of toxins on the developing brain. Annu. Rev. Public Health 36 , 211–230 (2015).

Liu, J. et al. Assessment of relationship on excess arsenic intake from drinking water and cognitive impairment in adults and elders in arsenicosis areas. International J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220 , 424–430 (2017).

Wener, R. E. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (ed S. D. Clayton) 316–331 (Oxford University Press 2012).

Abatement, É.-U. O. o. N. & Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety . (Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control., 1974).

Fairweather, L. & McConville, S. Prison Architecture. (Routledge, 2013).

Maschke, C., Harder, J., Ising, H., Hecht, K. & Thierfelder, W. Stress hormone changes in persons exposed to simulated night noise. Noise Health 5 , 35 (2002).

Google Scholar

Ising, H. & Kruppa, B. Health effects caused by noise: evidence in the literature from the past 25 years. Noise Health 6 , 5 (2004).

PubMed Google Scholar

Wise, R. A. Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5 , 483 (2004).

Sharma, S. et al. Effect of environmental toxicants on neuronal functions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 , 44906–44921 (2020).

Voss, J. L., Bridge, D. J., Cohen, N. J. & Walker, J. A. A closer look at the hippocampus and memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 , 577–588 (2017).

Landrigan, P. J. et al. Early environmental origins of neurodegenerative disease in later life. Environm. Health Perspect. 113 , 1230–1233 (2005).

Jing, J. et al. Changes in the synaptic structure of hippocampal neurons and impairment of spatial memory in a rat model caused by chronic arsenite exposure. NeuroToxicology 33 , 1230–1238 (2012).

Pandey, R. et al. From the cover: arsenic induces hippocampal neuronal apoptosis and cognitive impairments via an up-regulated BMP2/Smad-dependent reduced BDNF/TrkB signaling in rats. Toxicol. Sci. 159 , 137–158 (2017).

Engstrom, A. K. & Xia, Z. Lead exposure in late adolescence through adulthood impairs short-term spatial memory and the neuronal differentiation of adult-born cells in C57BL/6 male mice. Neurosci. Lett. 661 , 108–113 (2017).

Stewart, W. F. et al. Past adult lead exposure is linked to neurodegeneration measured by brain MRI. Neurology 66 , 1476–1484 (2006).

O’Bryant, S. E., Edwards, M., Menon, C. V., Gong, G. & Barber, R. Long-term low-level arsenic exposure is associated with poorer neuropsychological functioning: a Project Frontier study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8 , 861–874 (2011).

Seo, J. et al. Lead-induced impairments in the neural processes related to working memory function. PloS One 9 , e105308 (2014).

Cervantes, M. C., David, J. T., Loyd, D. R., Salinas, J. A. & Delville, Y. Lead exposure alters the development of agonistic behavior in golden hamsters. Dev. Psychobiol. 47 , 158–165 (2005).

Soeiro, A. C., Gouvêa, T. S. & Moreira, E. G. Behavioral effects induced by subchronic exposure to Pb and their reversion are concentration and gender dependent. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 26 , 733–739 (2007).

Eubig, P. A., Aguiar, A. & Schantz, S. L. Lead and PCBs as risk factors for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Environ. Health Perspect. 118 , 1654–1667 (2010).

Rocha, A. & Trujillo, K. A. Neurotoxicity of low-level lead exposure: history, mechanisms of action, and behavioral effects in humans and preclinical models. Neurotoxicology 73 , 58–80 (2019).

Cui, B. et al. Chronic noise exposure acts cumulatively to exacerbate Alzheimer’s disease-like amyloid-β pathology and neuroinflammation in the rat hippocampus. Sci. Rep. 5 , 12943 (2015).

Jafari, Z., Kolb, B. E. & Mohajerani, M. H. Chronic traffic noise stress accelerates brain impairment and cognitive decline in mice. Exp. Neurol. 308 , 1–12 (2018).

Cheng, H., Sun, G., Li, M., Yin, M. & Chen, H. Neuron loss and dysfunctionality in hippocampus explain aircraft noise-induced working memory impairment: a resting-state fMRI study on military pilots. BioSci. Trends 13 , 430–440 (2019).

Nußbaum, R. et al. Associations of air pollution and noise with local brain structure in a cohort of older adults. Environ. Health Perspect. 128 , 67012 (2020).

Herry, C. et al. Processing of temporal unpredictability in human and animal amygdala. J. Neurosci. 27 , 5958–5966 (2007).

Glade, S. et al. Disaster resilience and sustainability of incarceration infrastructures: a review of the literature. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 80 , 103190 (2022).

Pellow, D. et al. Impact of law and policy on prison environmental justice: the 2022 annual report of the prison environmental justice project. https://static.prisonpolicy.org/reports/PPI_Annual_2022-2023.pdf (2022).

Bradshaw, E. A. Tombstone towns and toxic prisons: prison ecology and the necessity of an anti-prison environmental movement. Crit. Criminol. 26 , 407–422 (2018).

Crime and Justice Institute, J.Guevara, M. & Solomon, E. Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections. National Institute of Corrections (Citeseer, 2009).

Liman Center. Seeing solitary https://seeingsolitary.limancenter.yale.edu/ (2023).

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D. & Rhodes, L. Who lives in super-maximum custody-a Washington state study. Fed. Probat. 64 , 33 (2000).

Haney, C. Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1 , 285–310 (2018).

Cloud, D. H., Drucker, E., Browne, A. & Parsons, J. Public health and solitary confinement in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 105 , 18–26 (2014).

Labrecque, R. M. & Smith, P. Advancing the study of solitary confinement. In: J. Fuhrmann, S. Baier (eds.) Prisons and Prison Systems: Practices, Types, and Challenges, 57–70 (Nova Science Publisher’s, Incorporated, 2013).

Labrecque, R. M. & Smith, P. Assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Crim. Justice Behav. 46 , 1445–1455 (2019).

Morgan, R. D. et al. Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22 , 439 (2016).

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K. & Leggett, W. One year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation (Colorado: Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and Analysis Colorado, 2010).

Kaba, F. et al. Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. Am. J. Public Health 104 , 442–447 (2014).

Strong, J. D. et al. The body in isolation: the physical health impacts of incarceration in solitary confinement. PLoS One 15 , e0238510 (2020).

Williams, B. A. et al. The cardiovascular health burdens of solitary confinement. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 34 , 1977–1980 (2019).

Reiter, K. et al. Psychological distress in solitary confinement: symptoms, severity, and prevalence in the United States, 2017–2018. Am. J. Public Health 110 , S56–s62 (2020).

Haney, C. Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime Delinq. 49 , 124–156 (2003).

Luigi, M., Dellazizzo, L., Giguère, C., Goulet, M. H. & Dumais, A. Shedding light on “the hole”: a systematic review and meta-analysis on adverse psychological effects and mortality following solitary confinement in correctional settings. Front. Psychiatry 11 , 840 (2020). *This meta-analysis found that solitary confinement was associated increased adverse psychological effects, beyond that of general incarceration or presence of prior mental illness.

Brown, E. A systematic review of the effects of prison segregation. Aggress. Violent Behav. 52 , 101389 (2020).

Hagan, B. O. et al. History of solitary confinement is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among individuals recently released from prison. J. Urban Health 95 , 141–148 (2018).

Favril, L., Yu, R., Hawton, K. & Fazel, S. Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 7 , 682–691 (2020).

Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. et al. Association of restrictive housing during incarceration with mortality after release. JAMA Netw. Open 2 , e1912516, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12516 (2019). *Exposure to solitary confienment during incarceration was associated with increased risk of mortality during community reentry, especially from suicide, homicide, and opioid overdose.

Gendreau, P., Freedman, N., Wilde, G. & Scott, G. Changes in EEG alpha frequency and evoked response latency during solitary confinement. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 79 , 54 (1972).

U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing. (2016).

Lynch, L., Mason, K. & Rodriguez, N. Restrictive housing in the US: Issues, challenges, and future directions. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (2016).

Kapoor, R. & Trestman, R. Mental Health Effects of Restrictive Housing Report No. NCJ 250315 (2016).

Fone, K. C. & Porkess, M. V. Behavioural and neurochemical effects of post-weaning social isolation in rodents—relevance to developmental neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 , 1087–1102 (2008).

Makinodan, M., Rosen, K. M., Ito, S. & Corfas, G. A critical period for social experience–dependent oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination. Science 337 , 1357–1360 (2012).

Robbins, T., Jones, G. & Wilkinson, L. S. Behavioural and neurochemical effects of early social deprivation in the rat. J. Psychopharmacol. 10 , 39–47 (1996).

Rosenzweig, M. R., Krech, D., Bennett, E. L. & Diamond, M. C. Effects of environmental complexity and training on brain chemistry and anatomy: a replication and extension. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 55 , 429 (1962).

Begni, V., Zampar, S., Longo, L. & Riva, M. A. Sex differences in the enduring effects of social deprivation during adolescence in rats: implications for psychiatric disorders. Neuroscience 437 , 11–22 (2020).

Lavenda-Grosberg, D. et al. Acute social isolation and regrouping cause short- and long-term molecular changes in the rat medial amygdala. Mol. Psychiatry 27 , 886–895 (2022).

Yamamuro, K. et al. A prefrontal–paraventricular thalamus circuit requires juvenile social experience to regulate adult sociability in mice. Nat. Neurosci. 23 , 1240–1252 (2020).

Park, G. et al. Social isolation impairs the prefrontal-nucleus accumbens circuit subserving social recognition in mice. Cell Rep. 35 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109104 (2021).

Liu, C. et al. Altered structural connectome in adolescent socially isolated mice. NeuroImage 139 , 259–270 (2016).

Sheridan, M. A., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., McLaughlin, K. A. & Nelson, C. A. III Variation in neural development as a result of exposure to institutionalization early in childhood. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci. 109 , 12927–12932 (2012).

Mehta, M. A. et al. Hyporesponsive reward anticipation in the Basal Ganglia following severe institutional deprivation early in life. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22 , 2316–2325 (2010).

Mackes, N. K. et al. Early childhood deprivation is associated with alterations in adult brain structure despite subsequent environmental enrichment. Proc, Natl Acad. Sci. 117 , 641–649 (2020). * Children exposed to instutional deprivation in Romanian ophanages showed alterations in adult brain structure 20 years post- instutitionalization.

Sheridan, M. A. et al. Early deprivation alters structural brain development from middle childhood to adolescence. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabn4316 (2022).

Bick, J. et al. Effect of early institutionalization and foster care on long-term white matter development: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 169 , 211–219 (2015).

Wade, M., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H. & Nelson, C. A. Long-term effects of institutional rearing, foster care, and brain activity on memory and executive functioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116 , 1808–1813 (2019).

Bos, K. J., Fox, N., Zeanah, C. H. & Nelson Iii, C. A. Effects of early psychosocial deprivation on the development of memory and executive function. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 3 , 16 (2009).

Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. Excluded from humanity: the dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 107–113 (2010).

Teigen, A. States that limit or prohibit juvenile shackling and solitary confinement https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/states-that-limit-or-prohibit-juvenile-shackling-and-solitary-confinement (2022).

Library of Congress. H.R.4972—118th Congress (2023–2024) https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4972?s=1&r=68 (2023).

Lobel, J. & Akil, H. Law & neuroscience: the case of solitary confinement. Daedalus 147 , 61–75 (2018).

Liberman, M. D. United States District Court Northern District of California Oakland Division https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Lieberman%20Expert%20Report.pdf (2015).

McCall-Smith, K. United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). Int. Legal Mater. 55 , 1180–1205 (2016).

U.S. Department of Justice. Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12. Report No. NCJ250612 (2017).

U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009. Report No. NCJ250546 (2020).

Harcourt, B. E. Reducing mass incarceration: lessons from the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals in the 1960s. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 9 , 53 (2011).

DeFreitas, K. D. & Hucker, S. J. in Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine ( Second Edition ) (eds Jason P.-J. & R. W. Byard) 574–578 (Elsevier, 2015).

American Law Institute. in American Law Institute (Washington D.C., 1962).

Cornell Law School. M’naghten Rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule (2023).

Donohue, A., Arya, V., Fitch, L. & Hammen, D. Legal insanity: assessment of the inability to refrain. Psychiatry 5 , 58–66 (2008).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Jurjako, M., Malatesti, L. & Brazil, I. A. How to advance the debate on the criminal responsibility of antisocial offenders. Neuroethics 17 , 1 (2024).

Craske, M. G., Herzallah, M. M., Nusslock, R. & Patel, V. From neural circuits to communities: an integrative multidisciplinary roadmap for global mental health. Nat. Ment. Health 1 , 12–24 (2023).

Raine, A. Antisocial personality as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 14 , 259–289 (2018).

Sauve, G., Lavigne, K. M., Pochiet, G., Brodeur, M. B. & Lepage, M. Efficacy of psychological interventions targeting cognitive biases in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 78 , 101854 (2020).

Baskin-Sommers, A., Chang, S.-A., Estrada, S. & Chan, L. Toward targeted interventions: examining the science behind interventions for youth who offend. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 5 , 345–369 (2022). *A comprehensive review that details effective alternatives to incarceration that address public safety concerns as well as serve the needs of youth.

Baskin-Sommers, A., Ruiz, S., Sarcos, B. & Simmons, C. Cognitive–affective factors underlying disinhibitory disorders and legal implications. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1 , 145–160 (2022).

Baskin-Sommers, A., Curtin, J. J. & Newman, J. P. Altering the cognitive-affective dysfunctions of psychopathic and externalizing offender subtypes with cognitive remediation. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 45–57 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School for providing an interdisciplinary scholarly environment where these ideas can grow.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Yale University, 100 College St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

Arielle Baskin-Sommers, Alex Williams, Callie Benson-Williams, Sonia Ruiz & Jordyn R. Ricard

Yale Law School, 127 Wall St, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

Arielle Baskin-Sommers & Jorge Camacho

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B.S. and J.C. conceptualized the manuscript. A.B.S., A.W., C.B.W. and J.C. conducted literature searches. A.B.S. and J.C. wrote the initial draft. A.B.S., A.W., C.B.W., S.R. and J.R.R., J.C. edited and approved the final text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arielle Baskin-Sommers .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Psychology thanks Robert Morgan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baskin-Sommers, A., Williams, A., Benson-Williams, C. et al. Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience. Commun Psychol 2 , 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00090-9

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 30 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00090-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Essay on Criminal Justice System

Students are often asked to write an essay on Criminal Justice System in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

Introduction to criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law. It has three main parts: the police, courts, and corrections. These parts work together to prevent and punish criminal activities.

The Role of Police

The police are the first step in the criminal justice system. They keep us safe by preventing crime and catching people who break the law. When they find evidence, they give it to the courts.

The Court System

The courts are where judges decide if someone broke the law. They look at the evidence given by the police. If they find the person guilty, they decide the punishment.

Corrections and Punishment

The last part is corrections. This includes prisons, probation, and parole. Prisons are where people go if they’re found guilty. Probation and parole are ways for people to serve their punishment outside of prison.

Importance of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is important because it helps keep order in society. It makes sure that people who break the law are punished, which helps prevent more crime.

250 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

What is the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law. These institutions include the police, the courts, and the correctional facilities. They work together to maintain social control, deter and control crime, and sanction those who violate laws.

The Role of the Police

The police are the first point of contact in the criminal justice system. Their job is to enforce laws, maintain peace, and protect the community. When a crime happens, the police investigate, gather evidence, and arrest the suspect.

The Courts and Their Function

After the police make an arrest, the case moves to the court. The court’s role is to judge if the person is guilty or not. This is done through a trial where both sides present their arguments. If the person is found guilty, the court decides the punishment.

Correctional Facilities

The last part of the criminal justice system is the correctional facilities. These are places like jails and prisons. If a person is found guilty, they might be sent here. The goal is to punish them but also to help them become better citizens.

The Importance of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is very important. It helps keep our society safe and orderly. It makes sure that people who break the law are punished. But it also tries to help these people change their ways so they can live better lives.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system plays a key role in maintaining law and order in society. It ensures that justice is served for both the victims and the offenders. It’s a system that is designed to protect the rights of everyone involved.

500 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law in line with a defined set of procedural rules and limitations. In simple words, it’s a system that makes sure people follow the law. If someone breaks the law, this system steps in.

Parts of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is made up of three main parts. These are the police, the courts, and corrections.

The police are responsible for enforcing the law. They are the ones who catch people who break the law. After catching these people, the police hand them over to the courts.

The courts then decide if the person is guilty or not. They do this by listening to both sides of the story. If the person is found guilty, the court gives a punishment. This punishment is meant to make the person understand that breaking the law is wrong.

The corrections part of the system is where the punishment happens. This could be in a jail or prison, or the person might be allowed to stay in their own home but with some rules they must follow.

Why is the Criminal Justice System Important?

The criminal justice system plays a big role in keeping our society safe. It makes sure that everyone follows the law. If there were no system to punish people who break the law, then more people might decide to do bad things.

The system also tries to help people who have broken the law to change their ways. This is done through programs that teach them new skills or help them to understand why what they did was wrong.

Challenges in the Criminal Justice System

Even though the criminal justice system is very important, it also has some problems. Sometimes, people are treated unfairly because of their race or how much money they have. Some people might get a harsher punishment than others for the same crime. This is not fair, and many people are working to make the system better.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system is a key part of our society. It helps to make sure that people follow the law and punishes those who don’t. It also tries to help people change their ways so they don’t break the law again. But, like any system, it has problems that need to be fixed. By understanding how it works, we can all help to make it better.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Crime Prevention
Essay on Crime On Society
Essay on College Diversity

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical Considerations

Published: 20 December 2022
Volume 47 , pages 1050–1070, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Charis E. Kubrin 1 &
Rebecca Tublitz 1

4525 Accesses

17 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

How can we improve the effectiveness of criminal justice reform efforts? Effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is and shared visions of what success looks like. But consensus is hard to come by, and there has long been a distinction between “policy talk” or how problems are defined and solutions are promoted, and “policy action” or the design and adoption of certain policies. In this essay, we seek to promote productive thinking and talking about, as well as designing of, effective and sustainable criminal justice reforms. To this end, we offer reflections on underlying conceptual and practical considerations relevant for both criminal justice policy talk and action.

Criminal Justice Reform and the System’s Efficiency

Who Knows Best? A Question About How Criminal Policy Change Takes Place

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Across the political spectrum in the United States, there is agreement that incarceration and punitive sanctions cannot be the sole solution to crime. After decades of criminal justice expansion, incarceration rates peaked between 2006 and 2008 and have dropped modestly, but consistently, ever since then (Gramlich, 2021 ). Calls to ratchet up criminal penalties to control crime, with some exceptions, are increasingly rare. Rather, where bitter partisanship divides conservatives and progressives on virtually every other issue, bipartisan support for criminal justice reform is commonplace. This support has yielded many changes in recent years: scaling back of mandatory sentencing laws, limiting sentencing enhancements, expanding access to non-prison alternatives for low-level drug and property crimes, reducing revocations of community supervision, and increasing early release options (Subramanian & Delaney, 2014 ). New laws passed to reduce incarceration have outpaced punitive legislation three-to-one (Beckett et al., 2016 , 2018 ). Rather than the rigid “law and order” narrative that characterized the dominant approach to crime and punishment since the Nixon administration, policymakers and advocates have found common ground in reform conversations focused on cost savings, evidence-based practice, and being “smart on crime.” A “new sensibility” prevails (Phelps, 2016 ).

Transforming extensive support for criminal justice reform into substantial reductions in justice-involved populations has proven more difficult, and irregular. While the number of individuals incarcerated across the nation has declined, the U.S. continues to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, with nearly 1.9 million people held in state and federal prisons, local jails, and detention centers (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022 ; Widra & Herring, 2021 ). Another 3.9 million people remain on probation or parole (Kaeble, 2021 ). And, not all jurisdictions have bought into this new sensibility: rural and suburban reliance on prisons has increased during this new era of justice reform (Kang-Brown & Subramanian, 2017 ). Despite extensive talk of reform, achieving actual results “is about as easy as bending granite” (Petersilia, 2016 :9).

How can we improve the effectiveness of criminal justice reform? At its core, a reform is an effort to ameliorate an undesirable condition, eliminate an identified problem, achieve a goal, or strengthen an existing (successful) policy. Scholarship yields real insights into effective programming and practice in response to a range of issues in criminal justice. Equally apparent, however, is the lack of criminological knowledge incorporated into the policymaking process. Thoughtful are proposals to improve the policy-relevance of criminological knowledge and increase communication between research and policy communities (e.g., Blomberg et al., 2016 ; Mears, 2022 ). But identifying what drives effective criminal justice reform is not so straightforward. For one, the goals of reform vary across stakeholders: Should reform reduce crime and victimization? Focus on recidivism? Increase community health and wellbeing? Ensure fairness in criminal justice procedure? Depending upon who is asked, the answer differs. Consensus on effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is and shared visions of what success looks like. Scholars of the policy process often distinguish “policy talk,” or how problems are defined and solutions are promoted, from “policy action,” or the design and adoption of policy solutions, to better understand the drivers of reform and its consequences. This distinction is relevant to criminal justice reform (Bartos & Kubrin, 2018 :2; Tyack & Cuban, 1995 ).

We argue that an effective approach to criminal justice reform—one that results in policy action that matches policy talk—requires clarity regarding normative views about the purpose of punishment, appreciation of practical realities involved in policymaking, and insight into how the two intersect. To this end, in this essay we offer critical reflections on underlying conceptual and practical considerations that bear on criminal justice policy talk and action.

Part I. Conceptual Considerations: Narratives of Crime and Criminal Justice

According to social constructionist theory, the creation of knowledge is rooted in interactions between individuals through common language and shared meanings in social contexts (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ). Common language and shared meanings create ways of thinking, or narratives, that socially construct our reality and profoundly influence public definitions of groups, events, and social phenomena, including crime and criminal justice. As such, any productive conversation about reform must engage with society’s foundational narratives about crime and criminal justice, including views about the rationales for punishment.

I. Rationales of Punishment

What is criminal justice? What purpose does our criminal justice system serve? Answers to these questions are found in the theories, organization, and practices of criminal justice. A starting point for discovery is the fact that criminal justice is a system for the implementation of punishment (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982 ). This has not always been the case but today, punishment is largely meted out in our correctional system, or prisons and jails, which embody rationales for punishment including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. These rationales offer competing purposes and goals, and provide varying blueprints for how our criminal justice system should operate.

Where do these rationales come from? They derive, in part, from diverse understandings and explanations about the causes of crime. While many theories exist, a useful approach for thinking about crime and its causes is found in the two schools of criminological thought, the Classical and Positivist Schools of Criminology. These Schools reflect distinct ideological assumptions, identify competing rationales for punishment, and suggest unique social policies to address crime—all central to any discussion of criminal justice reform.

At its core, the Classical School sought to bring about reform of the criminal justice systems of eighteenth century Europe, which were characterized by such abuses as torture, presumption of guilt before trial, and arbitrary court procedures. Reformers of the Classical School, most notably Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, were influenced by social contract theorists of the Enlightenment, a cultural movement of intellectuals in late seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe that emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition, along with equality. Central assumptions of the Classical School include that people are rational and possessed of free will, and thus can be held responsible for their actions; that humans are governed by the principle of utility and, as such, seek pleasure or happiness and avoid pain; and that, to prevent crime, punishments should be just severe enough such that the pain or unhappiness created by the punishment outweighs any pleasure or happiness derived from crime, thereby deterring would-be-offenders who will see that “crime does not pay.”

The guiding concept of the Positivist School was the application of the scientific method to study crime and criminals. In contrast to the Classical School’s focus on rational decision-making, the Positivist School adopted a deterministic viewpoint, which suggests that crime is determined by factors largely outside the control of individuals, be they biological (such as genetics), psychological (such as personality disorder), or sociological (such as poverty). Positivists also promote the idea of multiple-factor causation, or that crime is caused by a constellation of complex forces.

When it comes to how we might productively think about reform, a solid understanding of these schools is necessary because “…the unique sets of assumptions of two predominant schools of criminological thought give rise to vastly different explanations of and prescriptions for the problem of crime” (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982 :36). In other words, the two schools of thought translate into different strategies for policy. They generate rationales for punishment that offer competing narratives regarding how society should handle those who violate the law. These rationales for punishment motivate reformers, whether the aim is to “rehabilitate offenders” or “get tough on crime,” influencing policy and practice.

The earliest rationale for punishment is retribution. Consistent with an individual’s desire for revenge, the aim is that offenders experience an unpleasant consequence for violating the law. Essentially, criminals should get what they deserve. While other rationales focus on changing future behavior, retribution focuses on an individual’s past actions and implies they have rightfully “earned” their punishment. Punishment, then, expresses moral disapproval for the criminal act committed. Advocates of retribution are not concerned with controlling crime; rather, they are in the business of “doing justice.” The death penalty and sentencing guidelines, a system of recommended sentences based upon offense (e.g., level of seriousness) and offender (e.g., number and type of prior offenses) characteristics, reflect basic principles of retribution.

Among the most popular rationales for punishment is deterrence, which refers to the idea that those considering crime will refrain from doing so out of a fear of punishment, consistent with the Classical School. Deterrence emphasizes that punishing a person also sends a message to others about what they can expect if they, too, violate the law. Deterrence theory provides the basis for a particular kind of correctional system that punishes the crime, not the criminal. Punishments are to be fixed tightly to specific crimes so that offenders will soon learn that the state means business. The death penalty is an example of a policy based on deterrence (as is obvious, these rationales are not mutually exclusive) as are three-strikes laws, which significantly increase prison sentences of those convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies.

Another rationale for punishment, incapacitation, has the goal of reducing crime by incarcerating offenders or otherwise restricting their liberty (e.g., community supervision reflected in probation, parole, electronic monitoring). Uninterested in why individuals commit crime in the first place, and with no illusion they can be reformed, the goal is to remove individuals from society during a period in which they are expected to reoffend. Habitual offender laws, which target repeat offenders or career criminals and provide for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions, reflect this rationale.

Embodied in the term “corrections” is the notion that those who commit crime can be reformed, that their behavior can be “corrected.” Rehabilitation refers to when individuals refrain from crime—not out of a fear of punishment—but because they are committed to law-abiding behavior. The goal, from this perspective, is to change the factors that lead individuals to commit crime in the first place, consistent with Positivist School arguments. Unless criminogenic risks are targeted for change, crime will continue. The correctional system should thus be arranged to deliver effective treatment; in other words, prisons must be therapeutic. Reflective of this rationale is the risk-need-responsibility (RNR) model, used to assess and rehabilitate offenders. Based on three principles, the risk principle asserts that criminal behavior can be reliably predicted and that treatment should focus on higher risk offenders, the need principle emphasizes the importance of criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of treatment and, the responsivity principle describes how the treatment should be provided.

When a crime takes place, harm occurs—to the victim, to the community, and even to the offender. Traditional rationales of punishment do not make rectifying this harm in a systematic way an important goal. Restoration, or restorative justice, a relatively newer rationale, aims to rectify harms and restore injured parties, perhaps by apologizing and providing restitution to the victim or by doing service for the community. In exchange, the person who violated the law is (ideally) forgiven and accepted back into the community as a full-fledged member. Programs associated with restorative justice are mediation and conflict-resolution programs, family group conferences, victim-impact panels, victim–offender mediation, circle sentencing, and community reparative boards.

II. Narratives of Criminal Justice

Rationales for punishment, thus, are many. But from where do they arise? They reflect and reinforce narratives of crime and criminal justice (Garland, 1991 ). Penological and philosophical narratives constitute two traditional ways of thinking about criminal justice. In the former, punishment is viewed essentially as a technique of crime control. This narrative views the criminal justice system in instrumental terms, as an institution whose overriding purpose is the management and control of crime. The focal question of interest is a technical one: What works to control crime? The latter, and second, narrative considers the philosophy of punishment. It examines the normative foundations on which the corrections system rests. Here, punishment is set up as a distinctively moral problem, asking how penal sanctions can be justified, what their proper objectives should be, and under what circumstances they can be reasonably imposed. The central question here is “What is just?”.

A third narrative, “the sociology of punishment,” conceptualizes punishment as a social institution—one that is distinctively focused on punishment’s social forms, functions, and significance in society (Garland, 1991 ). In this narrative, punishment, and the criminal justice system more broadly, is understood as a cultural and historical artifact that is concerned with the control of crime, but that is shaped by an ensemble of social forces and has significance and impacts that reach well beyond the population of criminals (pg. 119). A sociology of punishment narrative raises important questions: How do specific penal measures come into existence?; What social functions does punishment perform?; How do correctional institutions relate to other institutions?; How do they contribute to social order or to state power or to class domination or to cultural reproduction of society?; What are punishment’s unintended social effects, its functional failures, and its wider social costs? (pg. 119). Answers to these questions are found in the sociological perspectives on punishment, most notably those by Durkheim (punishment is a moral process, functioning to preserve shared values and normative conventions on which social life is based), Marx (punishment is a repressive instrument of class domination), Foucault (punishment is one part of an extensive network of “normalizing” practices in society that also includes school, family, and work), and Elias (punishment reflects a civilizing process that brings with it a move toward the privatization of disturbing events), among others.

Consistent with the sociology of punishment, Kraska and Brent ( 2011 ) offer additional narratives, which they call theoretical orientations, for organizing thoughts on the criminal justice system generally, and the control of crime specifically. They argue a useful way to think about theorizing is through the use of metaphors. Adopting this approach, they identify eight ways of thinking based on different metaphors: criminal justice as rational/legalism, as a system, as crime control vs. due process, as politics, as the social construction of reality, as a growth complex, as oppression, and as modernity. Several overlap with concepts and frameworks discussed earlier, while others, such as oppression, are increasingly applicable in current conversations about racial justice—something we take up in greater detail below. Consistent with Garland ( 1991 ), Kraska and Brent ( 2011 ) emphasize that each narrative tells a unique story about the history, growth, behaviors, motivations, functioning, and possible future of the criminal justice system. What unites these approaches is their shared interest in understanding punishment’s broader role in society.

There are still other narratives of crime and criminal justice, with implications for thinking about and conceptualizing reform. Packer ( 1964 ) identifies two theoretical models, each offering a different narrative, which reflect value systems competing for priority in the operation of the criminal process: the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model. The Crime Control Model is based on the view that the most important function of the criminal process is the repression of criminal conduct. The failure of law enforcement to bring criminal conduct under tight control is seen as leading to a breakdown of public order and hence, to the disappearance of freedom. If laws go unenforced and offenders perceive there is a low chance of being apprehended and convicted, a disregard for legal controls will develop and law-abiding citizens are likely to experience increased victimization. In this way, the criminal justice process is a guarantor of social freedom.

To achieve this high purpose, the Crime Control Model requires attention be paid to the efficiency with which the system operates to screen suspects, determine guilt, and secure dispositions of individuals convicted of crime. There is thus a premium on speed and finality. Speed, in turn, depends on informality, while finality depends on minimizing occasions for challenge. As such, the process cannot be “cluttered up” with ceremonious rituals. In this way, informal operations are preferred to formal ones, and routine, stereotyped procedures are essential to handle large caseloads. Packer likens the Crime Control Model to an “assembly line or a conveyor belt down which moves an endless stream of cases, never stopping, carrying the cases to workers who stand at fixed stations and who perform on each case as it comes by the same small but essential operation that brings it one step closer to being a finished product, or, to exchange the metaphor for the reality, a closed file” (pg. 11). Evidence of this model today is witnessed in the extremely high rate of criminal cases disposed of via plea bargaining.

In contrast, the Due Process model calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and a focus on the accused and their Constitutional rights. Stressing the possibility of error, this model emphasizes the need to protect procedural rights even if this prevents the system from operating with maximum efficiency. There is thus a rejection of informal fact-finding processes and insistence on formal, adjudicative, adversary fact-finding processes. Packer likens the Due Process model to an obstacle course: “Each of its successive stages is designed to present formidable impediments to carrying the accused any further along in the process” (pg. 13). That all death penalty cases are subject to appeal, even when not desired by the offender, is evidence of the Due Process model in action.

Like the frameworks described earlier, the Crime Control and Due Process models offer a useful framework for discussing and debating the operation of a system whose day-to-day functioning involves a constant tension between competing demands of different sets of values. In the context of reform, these models encourage us to consider critical questions: On a spectrum between the extremes represented by the two models, where do our present practices fall? What appears to be the direction of foreseeable trends along this spectrum? Where on the spectrum should we aim to be? In essence, which value system is reflected most in criminal justice practices today, in which direction is the system headed, and where should it aim go in the future? Of course this framework, as all others reviewed here, assumes a tight fit between structure and function in the criminal courts yet some challenge this assumption arguing, instead, that criminal justice is best conceived of as a “loosely coupled system” (Hagan et al., 1979 :508; see also Bernard et al., 2005 ).

III. The Relevance of Crime and Criminal Justice Narratives for Thinking about Reform

When it comes to guiding researchers and policymakers to think productively about criminal justice reform, at first glance the discussion above may appear too academic and intellectual. But these narratives are more than simply fodder for discussion or topics of debate in the classroom or among academics. They govern how we think and talk about criminal justice and, by extension, how the system should be structured—and reformed.

An illustrative example of this is offered in Haney’s ( 1982 ) essay on psychological individualism. Adopting the premise that legal rules, doctrines, and procedures, including those of the criminal justice system, reflect basic assumptions about human nature, Haney’s thesis is that in nineteenth century America, an overarching narrative dominated legal and social conceptions of human behavior—that of psychological individualism. Psychological individualism incorporates three basic “facts” about human behavior: 1) individuals are the causal locus of behavior; 2) socially problematic and illegal behavior therefore arises from some defect in the individual persons who perform it; and, 3) such behavior can be changed or eliminated only by effecting changes in the nature or characteristics of those persons. Here, crime is rooted in the nature of criminals themselves be the source genetic, biological, or instinctual, ideas consistent with the Classical School of Criminology.

Haney reviews the rise and supremacy of psychological individualism in American society, discusses its entrenchment in legal responses to crime, and describes the implications of adopting such a viewpoint. Psychological individualism, he claims, diverted attention away from the structural and situational causes of crime (e.g., poverty, inequality, capitalism) and suggested the futility of social reforms that sought solutions to human problems through changes in larger social conditions: “The legal system, in harmony with widely held psychological theories about the causal primacy of individuals, acted to transform all structural problems into matters of moral depravity and personal shortcoming” (pg. 226–27). This process of transformation is nowhere clearer than in our historical commitment to prisons as the solution to the problem of crime, a commitment that continues today. Psychological individualism continues to underpin contemporary reform efforts. For example, approaches to reducing racial disparities in policing by eliminating officers’ unconscious racial bias through implicit-bias trainings shifts the focus away from organizational and institutional sources of disparate treatment.

In sum, the various narratives of crime and criminal justice constitute an essential starting point for any discussion of reform. They reflect vastly differing assumptions and, in many instances, value orientations or ideologies. The diversity of ways of thinking arguably contribute to conflict in society over contemporary criminal justice policy and proposed reforms. Appreciating that point is critical for identifying ways to create effective and sustainable reforms.

At the same time, these different ways of thinking do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they collide with practical realities and constraints, which can and do shape how the criminal justice system functions, as well as determine the ability to reform it moving forward. For that reason, we turn to a discussion of how narratives about crime and criminal justice intersect with practical realities in the policy sphere, and suggest considerations that policymakers, researchers, and larger audiences should attend to when thinking about the future of reform.

Part II. Practical Considerations: Criminal Justice Reform through a Policy Lens

Criminal justice reform is no simple matter. Unsurprisingly, crime has long been considered an example of a “wicked” problem in public policy: ill-defined; with uncertainty about its causes and incomplete knowledge of effective solutions; complex arrangements of institutions responsible for addressing the problem; and, disagreement on foundational values (Head & Alford, 2015 ; Rittel & Webber, 1973 )—the latter apparent from the discussion above. Many note a large gap between criminological knowledge and policy (Mears, 2010 , 2022 ; Currie, 2007 ). While a movement to incorporate research evidence into the policy-making process has made some in-roads, we know less about how policymakers use this information to adopt and enact reforms. Put differently, more attention is paid to understanding the outcomes of crime-related policy while less is known about the contexts of, and inputs into, the process itself (Ismaili, 2006 ).

We identify practical considerations for policy-oriented researchers and policymakers in thinking through how to make criminal justice reform more effective. Specifically, we discuss practical considerations that reformers are likely to encounter related to problem formulation and framing (policy talk) and policy adoption (policy action), including issues of 1) variation and complexity in the criminal justice policy environment, 2) problem framing and policy content, 3) policy aims and outcomes, 4) equity considerations in policy design and evaluation; and, 5) policy process and policy change. These considerations are by no means exhaustive nor are they mutually exclusive. We offer these thoughts as starting points for discussion.

I. The Criminal Justice Policy Environment: Many Systems, Many Players

The criminal justice “system” in the United States is something of a misnomer. There is no single, centralized system. Instead, there are at least 51 separate systems—one for each of the 50 states, and the federal criminal justice system—each with different laws, policies, and administrative arrangements. Multiple agencies are responsible for various aspects of enforcing the law and administering justice. These agencies operate across multiple, overlapping jurisdictions. Some are at the municipal level (police), others are governed by counties (courts, prosecution, jails), and still others by state and federal agencies (prisons, probation, parole). Across these systems is an enormous amount of discretion regarding what crimes to prioritize for enforcement, whether and what charges to file, which sentences to mete out, what types of conditions, treatment, and programming to impose, and how to manage those under correctional authority. Scholars note the intrinsic problem with this wide-ranging independence: “criminal justice policy is made and put into action at the municipal, county, state, and national levels, and the thousands of organizations that comprise this criminal justice network are, for the most part, relatively autonomous both horizontally and vertically” (Lynch, 2011 :682; see also Bernard et al., 2005 ; Mears, 2017 ).

Criminal justice officials are not the only players. The “policy community” is made up of other governmental actors, including elected and appointed officials in the executive branches (governors and mayors) and legislative actors (council members, state, and federal representatives), responsible for formulating and executing legislation. Non-governmental actors play a role in the policy community as well, including private institutions and non-profit organizations, the media, interest and advocacy groups, academics and research institutions, impacted communities, along with the public at large (Ismaili, 2006 ).

Any consideration of criminal justice reform must attend to the structural features of the policy environment, including its institutional fragmentation. This feature creates both obstacles and opportunities for reform. Policy environments vary tremendously across states and local communities. Policies championed in Washington State are likely different than those championed in Georgia. But the policy community in Atlanta may be decidedly different than that of Macon, and policy changes can happen at hyper-local levels (Ouss & Stevenson, 2022 ). Differences between local jurisdictions can have national impacts: while urban jurisdictions have reduced their reliance on jails and prisons, rural and suburban incarceration rates continue to increase (Kang-Brown & Subramanian, 2017 ). Understanding key stakeholders, their political and policy interests, and their administrative authority to act is critical for determining how effective policy reforms can be pursued (Miller, 2008 ; Page, 2011 ). Prospects for, and possible targets of, reform thus necessitate a wide view of what constitutes “policy,” Footnote 1 looking not only to federal and state law but also to state and local administrative policies and practices (Reiter & Chesnut, 2018 ).

II. Policy Talk: Framing Problems, Shaping Possible Solutions

While agreement exists around the need for reform in the criminal justice system, this apparent unanimity belies disagreements over the proposed causes of the problem and feasible solutions (Gottschalk, 2015 ; Levin, 2018 ). This is evident in how reform is talked about in political and policy spheres, the types of reforms pursued, and which groups are its beneficiaries. Since the Great Recession of 2008, bipartisan reforms have often been couched in the language of fiscal conservatism, “right-sizing” the system, and being “smart on crime” (Beckett et al., 2016 ). These economic frames, focused on cost-efficiency, are effectively used to defend non-punitive policies including changes to the death penalty, marijuana legalization, and prison down-sizing (Aviram, 2015 ). However, cost-saving rationales are also used to advance punitive policies that shift the costs of punishment onto those who are being sanctioned, such as “pay-to-stay” jails and the multitude of fines and fees levied on justice-involved people for the cost of criminal justice administration. Economic justifications are not the only arguments that support the very same policy changes; fairness and proportionality, reducing prison overcrowding, enhancing public safety, and increasing rehabilitation are all deployed to defend various reforms (Beckett et al., 2016 ). Similarity in rhetorical justifications—cost-efficiency and fiscal responsibility, for example—can obscure deep divisions over how, and whom, to punish, divisions which stem from different narratives on the causes and consequences of crime.

The content of enacted policies also reveals underlying disagreements within justice reform. Clear distinctions are seen in how cases and people are categorized, and in who benefits from, or is burdened by, reform. For example, many states have lowered penalties and expanded rehabilitation alternatives for non-violent drug and other low-level offenses and technical violations on parole. Substantially fewer reforms target violent offenses. Decarceration efforts for non-violent offenders are often coupled with increasing penalties for others, including expansions of life imprisonment without parole for violent offenses (Beckett, 2018 ; Seeds, 2017 ). Reforms aimed only at individuals characterized as “non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual” can reinforce social distinctions between people (and offenses) seen as deserving of lenient treatment from those who aren’t (Beckett et al., 2016 ).

The framing of social problems can shape the nature of solutions, although the impact of “framing” deserves greater attention in the criminal justice policy process (Rein & Schön, 1977 ; Schneider & Ingram, 1993 ). Policies can be understood in rational terms—for their application of technical solutions to resolve pre-defined problems—but also through “value-laden components, such as social constructions, rationales, and underlying assumptions” (Schneider & Sidney, 2006 :105). Specific frames (e.g., “crime doesn’t pay” or “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”) derive from underlying narratives (e.g., classical school, rational-actor models of behavior, and deterrence) that shape how crime and criminal justice are understood, as discussed in Part I. Framing involves how issues are portrayed and categorized, and even small changes to language or images used to frame an issue can impact policy preferences (Chong & Druckman, 2007 ). Public sentiments play an important role in the policy process, as policymakers and elected officials are responsive to public opinion about punishments (Pickett, 2019 ). Actors in the policy community—criminal justice bureaucrats, elected officials, interest groups, activists—compete to influence how a problem is framed, and thus addressed, by policymakers (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009 ; Benford & Snow, 2000 ). Policymakers, particularly elected officials, commonly work to frame issues in ways that support their political goals and resonate with their constituents (Gamson, 1992 ).

As noted at the outset, public support for harsh punishments has declined since the 1990’s and the salience of punitive “law and order” and “tough-on-crime” politics has fallen as well, as public support for rehabilitative approaches has increased (Thielo et al., 2016 ). How can researchers and policymakers capitalize on this shift in public sentiments? Research suggests that different issue frames, such as fairness, cost to taxpayers, ineffectiveness, and racial disparities, can increase (or reduce) public support for policies for nonviolent offenders (e.g., Dunbar, 2022 ; Gottlieb, 2017 ) and even for policies that target violent offenders (Pickett et al., 2022 ). Public sentiment and framing clearly matter for what problems gain attention, the types of policies that exist, and who ultimately benefits. These themes raise orienting questions: In a specific locale, what are the dominant understandings of the policy problem? How do these understandings map to sets of foundational assumptions about the purpose of intervention (e.g., deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restoration) and understandings of why people commit crime (e.g., Classical and Positivist approaches)? What types of issue frames are effective in garnering support for reforms? How does this support vary by policy context (urban, suburban, rural; federal, statewide, and local) and audience (elected officials, agency leadership, frontline workers, political constituents)?

III. Proposed Solutions and Expected Outcomes: Instrumental or Symbolic?

There are a variety of motivations in pursuing various policy solutions, along with different kinds of goals. Some reflect a desire to create tangible change for a specific problem while others are meant to mollify a growing concern. As such, one practical consideration related to policymaking and reform that bears discussion is the symbolic and instrumental nature of criminal justice policies.

Policies are considered to have an instrumental nature when they propose or result in changes to behaviors related to a public problem such as crime—that is, when they change behavior through direct influence on individuals’ actions (Sample et al., 2011 :29; see also Grattet & Jenness, 2008 ; Gusfield, 1963 ; Oliver & Marion, 2008 ). Symbolic policies, by contrast, are those that policymakers pass in order to be seen in a favorable light by the public (Jenness, 2004 ), particularly in the context of a “moral panic” (Barak, 1994 ; Ben-Yehuda, 1990 ). As Sample et al., ( 2011 :28) explain, symbolic policies provide three basic functions to society: 1) reassuring the public by helping reduce angst and demonstrate that something is being done about a problem; 2) solidifying moral boundaries by codifying public consensus of right and wrong; and 3) becoming a model for the diffusion of law to other states and the federal government. Symbolic policies are thus meant to demonstrate that policymakers understand, and are willing to address, a perceived problem, even when there is little expectation such policies will make a difference. In this way, symbolic policies are “values statements” and function largely ceremonially.

This distinction has a long history in criminological work, dating back to Gusfield’s ( 1963 ) analysis of the temperance movement. Suggesting that policymaking is often dramatic in nature and intended to shift ways of thinking, Gusfield ( 1963 ) argues that Prohibition and temperance were intended as symbolic, rather than instrumental, goals in that their impacts were felt in the action of prohibition itself rather than in its effect on citizens’ consumptive behaviors.

A modern-day example of symbolic policy is found in the sanctuary status movement as it relates to the policing of immigrants. Historically, immigration enforcement was left to the federal government however state and local law enforcement have faced increasing demands to become more involved in enforcing immigration laws in their communities. Policies enacted to create closer ties between local police departments and federal immigration officials reflect this new pattern of “devolution of immigration enforcement” (Provine et al., 2016 ). The Secure Communities Program, the Criminal Alien Program, and 287g agreements, in different but complementary ways, provide resources and training to help local officials enforce immigration statutes.

The devolution of immigration enforcement has faced widespread scrutiny (Kubrin, 2014 ). Many local jurisdictions have rejected devolution efforts by passing sanctuary policies, which expressly limit local officials’ involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Among the most comprehensive is California’s SB54, passed in 2017, which made California a sanctuary state. The law prohibits local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration detainer requests, limits immigration agents’ access to local jails, and ends the use of jails to hold immigration detainees. At first glance, SB54 appears instrumental—its aim is to change the behavior of criminal justice officials in policing immigration. In practice, however, it appears that little behavioral change has taken place. Local police in California had already minimized their cooperation with Federal officials, well before SB54 was passed. In a broader sense then, “…the ‘sanctuary city’ name is largely a symbolic message of political support for immigrants without legal residency” and with SB54 specifically, “California [helped build] a wall of justice against President Trump’s xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies,” (Ulloa, 2017 ).

Instrumental and symbolic goals are not an either-or proposition. Policies can be both, simultaneously easing public fears, demonstrating legislators’ desire to act, and having direct appreciable effects on people’s behaviors (Sample et al., 2011 ). This may occur even when not intended. At the same time, a policy’s effects or outcomes can turn out to be different from the original aim, creating a gap between “policy talk” and “policy action.” In their analysis of law enforcement action in response to the passage of hate crime legislation, Grattet and Jenness ( 2008 ) find that legislation thought to be largely symbolic in nature, in fact, ended up having instrumental effects through changes in enforcement practices, even as these effects were conditioned by the organizational context of enforcement agencies. Symbolic law can be rendered instrumental (under certain organizational and social conditions) and symbolic policies may evolve to have instrumental effects.

As another example, consider aims and outcomes of sex offender registration laws, which provide information about people convicted of sex offenses to local and federal authorities and the public, including the person’s name, current location, and past offenses. As Sample et al. ( 2011 ) suggest, these laws, often passed immediately following a highly publicized sex crime or in the midst of a moral panic, are largely cast as symbolic policy, serving to reassure the public through notification of sex offenders’ whereabouts so their behaviors can be monitored (Jenkins, 1998 ; Sample & Kadleck, 2008 ). While notification laws do not yield a discernable instrumental effect on offenders’ behavior (Tewksbury, 2002 ), this is not the sole goal of such policies. Rather, they are intended to encourage behavioral change among citizens (Sample et al., 2011 ), encouraging the public’s participation in their own safety by providing access to information. Do sex offender notification laws, in fact, alter citizen behavior, thereby boosting public safety?

To answer this question, Sample and her colleagues ( 2011 ) surveyed a random sample of Nebraska residents to determine whether they access sex offender information and to explore the reasons behind their desire, or reluctance, to do so. They find largely symbolic effects of registry legislation, with a majority of residents (over 69%) indicating they had never accessed the registry. These findings raise important questions about the symbolic vs. instrumental nature of criminal justice policies more broadly: “Should American citizens be content with largely symbolic crime policies and laws that demonstrate policy makers’ willingness to address problems, ease public fear, solidify public consensus of appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and provide a model of policies and laws for other states, or should they want more from crime control efforts? Is there a tipping point at which time the resources expended to adhere to symbolic laws and a point where the financial and human costs of the law become too high to continue to support legislation that is largely symbolic in nature? Who should make this judgment?” (pg. 46). These two examples, immigration-focused laws and sex offender laws, illustrate the dynamics involved in policymaking, particularly the relationship between proposed solutions and their expected outcomes. They reveal that instrumental and symbolic goals often compete for priority in the policy-making arena.

IV. Equity-Consciousness in Policy Formulation

As the criminal justice system exploded in size in the latter half of the twentieth century, its impacts have not spread equally across the population. Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected by policing, mass incarceration, and surveillance practices. At a moment of political momentum seeking to curb the excesses of the criminal justice system, careful attention must be paid not only to its overreach, but also to its racialized nature and inequitable impacts. Many evaluative criteria are used to weigh policies including efficiency, effectiveness, cost, political acceptability, and administrative feasibility, among others. One critical dimension is the extent to which a policy incorporates equity considerations into its design, or is ignorant about potential inequitable outcomes. While reducing racial disparities characterizes reform efforts of the past, these efforts often fail to yield meaningful impacts, and sometimes unintentionally exacerbate disparities. Equity analyses should be more formally centered in criminal justice policymaking.

Racial and ethnic disparities are a central feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. Decades of research reveals Black people, and to a lesser degree Latinos and Native Americans, are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system at all stages (Bales & Piquero, 2012 ; Hinton et al., 2018 ; Kutateladze et al., 2014 ; Menefee, 2018 ; Mitchell, 2005 ; Warren et al., 2012 ). These disparities have many sources: associations between blackness and criminality, and stereotypes of dangerousness (Muhammad, 2010 ); implicit racial bias (Spencer et al., 2016 ); residential and economic segregation that expose communities of color to environments that encourage criminal offending and greater police presence (Peterson & Krivo, 2010 ; Sharkey, 2013 ); and, punitive criminal justice policies that increase the certainty and severity of punishments, such as mandatory minimum sentences, life imprisonment, and habitual offender laws, for which people of color are disproportionately arrested and convicted (Raphael & Stoll, 2013 ; Schlesinger, 2011 ). Disparities in initial stages of criminal justice contact, at arrest or prosecution, can compound to generate disparate outcomes at later stages, such as conviction and sentencing, even where legal actors are committed to racial equality (Kutateladze et al., 2014 ). Disparities compound over time, too; having prior contact with the justice system may increase surveillance and the likelihood of being arrested, charged, detained pretrial, and sentenced to incarceration (Ahrens, 2020 ; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019 ).

Perspectives on how to reduce disparities vary widely, and understanding how the benefits or burdens of a given policy change will be distributed across racial and ethnic groups is not always clear. Even well-intentioned reforms intended to increase fairness and alleviate disparities can fail to achieve intended impacts or unintentionally encourage inequity. For example, sentencing guidelines adopted in the 1970s to increase consistency and reduce inequitable outcomes across groups at sentencing alleviated, but did not eliminate, racial disparities (Johnson & Lee, 2013 ); popular “Ban the Box” legislation, aimed at reducing the stigma of a criminal record, may increase racial disparities in callbacks for job seekers of color (Agan & Starr, 2018 ; Raphael, 2021 ); and “risk assessments,” used widely in criminal justice decision-making, may unintentionally reproduce existing disparities by relying on information that is itself a product of racialized policing, prosecution, and sentencing (Eckhouse et al., 2019 ). Conversely, policies enacted without explicit consideration of equity effects may result in reductions of disparities: California’s Proposition 47, which reclassifies certain felony offenses to misdemeanors, reduced Black and Latino disparities in drug arrests, likelihood of conviction, and rates of jail incarceration relative to Whites (Mooney et al., 2018 ; Lofstrom et al., 2019 ; MacDonald & Raphael, 2020 ).

Understanding the potential equity implications of criminal justice reforms should be a key consideration for policymakers and applied researchers alike. However, an explicit focus on reducing racial disparities is often excluded from the policymaking process, seen as a secondary concern to other policy goals, or framed in ways that focus on race-neutral processes rather than race-equitable outcomes (Chouhy et al., 2021 ; Donnelly, 2017 ). But this need not be the case; examinations of how elements of a given policy (e.g., goals, target population, eligibility criteria) and proposed changes to procedure or practice might impact different groups can be incorporated into policy design and evaluation. As one example, racial equity impact statements (REIS), a policy tool that incorporates an empirical analysis of the projected impacts of a change in law, policy, or practice on racial and ethnic groups (Porter, 2021 ), are used in some states. Modeled after the now-routine environmental impact and fiscal impact statements, racial impact statements may be conducted in advance of a hearing or vote on any proposed change to policy, or can even be incorporated in the policy formulation stages (Chouhy et al., 2021 ; Mauer, 2007 ). Researchers, analysts, and policymakers should also examine potential differential effects of existing policies and pay special attention to how structural inequalities intersect with policy features to contribute to—and potentially mitigate—disparate impacts of justice reforms (Anderson et al., 2022 ; Mooney et al., 2022 ).

V. Putting It Together: Modeling the Policy Change Process

Approaches to crime and punishment do not change overnight. Policy change can be incremental or haphazard, and new innovations adopted by criminal justice systems often bear markers of earlier approaches. There exist multiple frameworks for understanding change and continuity in approaches to crime and punishment. The metaphor of a pendulum is often used to characterize changes to criminal justice policy, where policy regimes swing back and forth between punishment and leniency (Goodman et al., 2017 ). These changes are ushered along by macro-level shifts of economic, political, demographics, and cultural sensibilities (Garland, 2001 ).

Policy change is rarely predictable or mechanical (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). Actors struggle over whom to punish and how, and changes in the relative resources, political position, and power among actors drive changes to policy and practice (Goodman et al., 2017 ). This conflict, which plays out at the level of politics and policymaking and is sometimes subsumed within agencies and day-to-day practices in the justice system, creates a landscape of contradictory policies, logics, and discourses. New policies and practices are “tinted” by (Dabney et al., 2017 ) or “braided” with older logics (Hutchinson, 2006 ), or “layered” onto existing practices (Rubin, 2016 ).

Public policy theory offers different, but complementary, insights into how policies come to be, particularly under complex conditions. One widely used framework in policy studies is the “multiple streams” framework (Kingdon, 1995 ). This model of the policymaking process focuses on policy choice and agenda setting, or the question of what leads policymakers to pay attention to one issue over others, and pursue one policy in lieu of others.

The policy process is heuristically outlined as a sequential set of steps or stages: problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption or decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. However, real-world policymaking rarely conforms to this process (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). In the multiple streams lens, the process is neither rational nor linear but is seen as “organized anarchy,” described by several features: 1) ambiguity over the definition of the problem, creating many possible solutions for the same circumstances and conditions; 2) limited time to make decisions and multiple issues vying for policymakers’ attention, leading to uncertain policy preferences; 3) a crowded policy community with shifting participation; and, 4) multiple agencies and organizations in the policy environment working on similar problems with little coordination or transparency (Herweg et al., 2018 ).

In this context, opportunity for change emerges when three, largely separate, “streams” of interactions intersect: problems , politics , and policies . First, in the “problem stream,” problems are defined as conditions that deviate from expectations and are seen by the public as requiring government intervention. Many such “problems” exist, but not all rise to the level of attention from policymakers. Conditions must be re-framed into problems requiring government attention. Several factors can usher this transformation. Changes in the scale of problem, such as increases or decreases in crime, can raise the attention of government actors. So-called “focusing events” (Birkland, 1997 ), or rare and unexpected events, such as shocking violent crime or a natural disaster (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), can also serve this purpose. The murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, for instance, was a focusing event for changing the national conversation around police use of force into a problem requiring government intervention. Finally, feedback from existing programs or policies, particularly those that fail to achieve their goals or have unwanted effects, can reframe existing conditions as problems worthy of attention.

The “policy stream” is where solutions, or policy alternatives, are developed to address emerging problems. Solutions are generated both by “visible” participants in the stream, such as prominent elected officials, or by “hidden” actors, such as criminal justice bureaucrats, interest groups, academics, or consultants. Policy ideas float around in this stream until they are “coupled,” or linked, with specific problems. At any given time, policy ideas based in deterrence or incapacitation rationales, including increasing the harshness of penalties or the certainty of sanctions, and solutions based in rehabilitative rationales, such as providing treatment-oriented diversion or restorative justice programs, all co-exist in the policy stream. Not all policy alternatives are seen as viable and likely to reach the agenda; viable solutions are marked by concerns of feasibility, value acceptability, public support or tolerance, and financial viability.

Lastly, the “political stream” is governed by several elements, including changes to the national mood and changing composition of governments and legislatures as new politicians are elected and new government administrators appointed. This stream helps determine whether a problem will find a receptive venue (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). For example, the election of a progressive prosecutor intent on changing status quo processing of cases through the justice system creates a viable political environment for new policies to be linked with problems. When the three streams converge, that is, when conditions become problems, a viable solution is identified, and a receptive political venue exists, a “policy window” opens and change is most likely. For Kingdon ( 2011 ), this is a moment of “opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems” (pg. 165).

Models of the policy change process, of which the multiple streams framework is just one, may be effectively applied to crime and justice policy spheres. Prior discussions on the ways of thinking about crime and criminal justice can be usefully integrated with models of the policy change process; narratives shape how various conditions are constructed as problems worthy of collective action and influence policy ideas and proposals available among policy communities. We encourage policymakers and policy-oriented researchers to examine criminal justice reform through policy process frameworks in order to better understand why some reforms succeed, and why others fail.

When it comes to the criminal justice system, one of the most commonly asked questions today is: How can we improve the effectiveness of reform efforts? Effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is as well as shared visions of what success looks like. Yet consensus is hard to come by, and scholars have long differentiated between “policy talk” and “policy action.” The aim of this essay has been to identify conceptual and practical considerations related to both policy talk and policy action in the context of criminal justice reform today.

On the conceptual side, we reviewed narratives that create society’s fundamental ways of thinking about or conceptualizing crime and criminal justice. These narratives reflect value orientations that underlie our criminal justice system and determine how it functions. On the practical side, we identified considerations for both policy-oriented researchers and policymakers in thinking through how to make criminal justice reform more effective. These practical considerations included variation and complexity in the criminal justice policy environment, problem framing and policy content, policy aims and outcomes, equity considerations in policy design and evaluation, and models of the policy change process.

These conceptual and practical considerations are by no means exhaustive, nor are they mutually-exclusive. Rather, they serve as starting points for productively thinking and talking about, as well as designing, effective and sustainable criminal justice reform. At the same time, they point to the need for continuous policy evaluation and monitoring—at all levels—as a way to increase accountability and effectiveness. Indeed, policy talk and policy action do not stop at the problem formation, agenda setting, or adoption stages of policymaking. Critical to understanding effective policy is implementation and evaluation, which create feedback into policy processes, and is something that should be addressed in future work on criminal justice reform.

No single definition of public policy exists. Here we follow Smith and Larimer ( 2017 ) and define policy as any action by the government in response to a problem, including laws, rules, agency policies, programs, and day-to-day practices.

Agan, A. & Starr, S. (2018) Ban the box criminal records and racial discrimination: A field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133 (1), 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx028

Ahrens, D. M. (2020). Retroactive legality: Marijuana convictions and restorative justice in an era of criminal justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 , 379.

Google Scholar

Anderson, C. N., Wooldredge, J., & Cochran, J. C. (2022). Can “race-neutral” program eligibility requirements in criminal justice have disparate effects? An examination of race, ethnicity, and prison industry employment. Criminology & Public Policy, 21 , 405–432.

Article Google Scholar

Aviram, H. (2015). Cheap on Crime: Recession-era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment . University of California Press.

Book Google Scholar

Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Racial/Ethnic differentials in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Quarterly, 29 , 742–773.

Barak, G. (1994). Media, process, and the social construction of crime . Garland.

Bartos, B. J., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety? Findings from California’s Prop 47. Criminology & Public Policy, 17 , 693–715.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Beckett, K. (2018). The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 , 235–259.

Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664 , 238–259.

Beckett, K., Beach, L., Knaphus, E., & Reosti, A. (2018). US criminal justice policy and practice in the twenty‐first century: Toward the end of mass incarceration?. Law & Policy, 40 (4), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12113

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 611–639.

Ben-Yehuda, N. (1990). The politics and morality of deviance . State University of New York Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology knowledge . Anchor Books.

Bernard, T. J., Paoline, E. A., III., & Pare, P. P. (2005). General systems theory and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 , 203–211.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Georgetown University Press.

Blomberg, T., Brancale, J., Beaver, K., & Bales, W. (2016). Advancing criminology & criminal justice policy . Routledge.

Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality. Theoretical Criminology, 11 (2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607075846

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10 , 103–126.

Chouhy, C., Swagar, N., Brancale, J., Noorman, K., Siennick, S. E., Caswell, J., & Blomberg, T. G. (2021). Forecasting the racial and ethnic impacts of ‘race-neutral’ legislation through researcher and policymaker partnerships. American Journal of Criminal Justice . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09619-8

Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Criminal justice theories and ideologies. In Reaffirming rehabilitation (pp. 27–44). Andersen.

Dabney, D. A., Page, J., & Topalli, V. (2017). American bail and the tinting of criminal justice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56 , 397–418.

Donnelly, E. A. (2017). The politics of racial disparity reform: Racial inequality and criminal justice policymaking in the states. Am J Crim Just, 42 , 1–27.

Dunbar, A. (2022). Arguing for criminal justice reform: Examining the effects of message framing on policy preferences. Justice Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2038243

Eckhouse, L., Lum, K., Conti-Cook, C., & Ciccolini, J. (2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46 , 185–209.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics . Cambridge University Press.

Garland, D. (1991). Sociological Perspectives on Punishment. Crime and Justice, 14 , 115–165.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society . University of Chicago Press.

Goodman, P., Page, J., & Phelps, M. (2017). Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice . Oxford University Press.

Gottlieb, A. (2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 63 , 636–656.

Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics . Princeton University Press.

Gramlich, J. (2021). America’s incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995 . Pew Research Center.

Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2008). Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces, 87 , 501–527.

Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement . University of Illinois Press.

Hagan, J., Hewitt, J. D., & Alwin, D. F. (1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58 , 506–527.

Haney, C. (1982). Criminal justice and the nineteenth-century paradigm: The triumph of psychological individualism in the ‘Formative Era.’ Law and Human Behavior, 6 , 191–235.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47 , 711–739.

Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp 17–53). Routledge.

Hinton, E., Henderson, L., & Reed, C. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system . Vera Institute of Justice.

Hutchinson, S. (2006). Countering catastrophic criminology. Punishment & Society, 8 , 443–467.

Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17 , 255–269.

Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in Modern America . Yale University Press.

Jenness, V. (2004). Explaining criminalization: From demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annual Review of Sociology, 30 , 147–171.

Johnson, B. D., & Lee, J. G. (2013). Racial disparity under sentencing guidelines: A survey of recent research and emerging perspectives. Sociology Compass, 7 , 503–514.

Kaeble, D. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.

Kang-Brown, J., & Subramanian, R. (2017). Out of sight: The growth of jails in rural America . Vera Institute of Justice.

Kingdon, J. W. (2011[1995]). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . Harper Collins.

Kraska, P. B., & Brent, J. J. (2011). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

Kubrin, C. E. (2014). Secure or insecure communities?: Seven reasons to abandon the secure communities program. Criminology & Public Policy, 13 , 323–338.

Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2019). Cumulative disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 , 291–319.

Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R., Johnson, B. D., & Spohn, C. C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52 , 514–551.

Levin, B. (2018). The consensus myth in criminal justice reform. Michigan Law Review, 117 , 259.

Lofstrom, M., Martin, B., & Raphael, S. (2019). The effect of sentencing reform on racial and ethnic disparities in involvement with the criminal justice system: The case of California's Proposition 47 (University of California, Working Paper).

Lynch, M. (2011). Mass incarceration legal change and locale. Criminology & Public Policy , 10(3), 673–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00733.x

MacDonald, J., & Raphael, S. (2020). Effect of scaling back punishment on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy, 19 , 1139–1164.

Mauer, M. (2007). Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Crime Law, 5 (19), 33.

Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness . Cambridge University Press.

Mears, D. P. (2017). Out-of-control criminal justice: The systems improvement solution for more safety, justice, accountability, and efficiency . Cambridge University Press.

Mears, D. P. (2022). Bridging the research-policy divide to advance science and policy: The 2022 Bruce Smith, Sr. award address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Evaluation Journal , 1–23.

Menefee, M. R. (2018). The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass, 12 , e12576.

Miller, L. L. (2008). The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control . Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21 , 439–466.

Mooney, A. C., Giannella, E., Glymour, M. M., Neilands, T. B., Morris, M. D., Tulsky, J., & Sudhinaraset, M. (2018). Racial/ethnic disparities in arrests for drug possession after California proposition 47, 2011–2016. American Journal of Public Health, 108 , 987–993.

Mooney, A. C., Skog, A., & Lerman, A. E. (2022). Racial equity in eligibility for a clean slate under automatic criminal record relief laws. Law and Society Review, 56 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12625

Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of Blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America . Harvard University Press.

Oliver, W. M., & Marion, N. E. (2008). Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19 , 397–413.

Ouss, A., & Stevenson, M. (2022). Does cash bail deter misconduct? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335138

Packer, H. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 , 1–68.

Page, J. (2011). The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California . Oxford University Press.

Petersilia, J. (2016). Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664 , 8–13.

Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide . Russell Sage Foundation.

Phelps, M. S. (2016). Possibilities and contestation in twenty-first-century US criminal justice downsizing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12 , 153–170.

Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 , 405–428.

Pickett, J. T., Ivanov, S., & Wozniak, K. H. (2022). Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: A nationally representative framing experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18 , 387–409.

Porter, N. (2021). Racial impact statements, sentencing project . Retrieved July 16 2022, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/racial-impact-statements/

Provine, D. M., Varsanyi, M. W., Lewis, P. G., & Decker, S. H. (2016). Policing immigrants: Local law enforcement on the front lines . University of Chicago Press.

Raphael, S. (2021). The intended and unintended consequences of ban the box. Annual Review of Criminology, 4 (1), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137

Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2013). Why are so many Americans in prison? Russell Sage Foundation.

Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 235–251). Lexington Books.

Reiter, K., & Chesnut, K. (2018). Correctional autonomy and authority in the rise of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14 , 49–68.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Rubin, A. T. (2016). Penal change as penal layering: A case study of proto-prison adoption and capital punishment reduction, 1785–1822. Punishment and Society, 18 , 420–441.

Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19 , 40–62.

Sample, L. L., Evans, M. K., & Anderson, A. L. (2011). Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22 , 27–49.

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2022 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved August 28 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

Schlesinger, T. (2011). The failure of race neutral policies: How mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements contribute to mass racialized incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 57 , 56–81.

Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044

Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2006). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal, 37 , 103–119.

Seeds, C. (2017). Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment and Society, 19 , 590–610.

Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality . University of Chicago Press.

Smith, K., & Larimer, C. (2017). The public policy theory primer (3rd Edition). Taylor & Francis.

Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser, J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and personality. Psychology Compass, 10 , 50–63.

Subramanian, R., & Delaney, R. (2014). Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences . Vera Institute of Justice.

Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Federal Probation, 66 , 21–26.

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 , 137–170.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform . Harvard University Press.

Ulloa, J. (2017). California becomes ‘sanctuary state’ in rebuke of Trump immigration policy. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20171005-story.html

Warren, P., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. (2012). The imprisonment penalty for Young Black and Hispanic Males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49 , 56–80.

Widra. E., & Herring, T. (2021). States of incarceration: The global context 2021 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved July 26 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Social Ecology II, University of California, Room 3309, Irvine, CA, 92697-7080, USA

Charis E. Kubrin & Rebecca Tublitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charis E. Kubrin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kubrin, C.E., Tublitz, R. How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical Considerations. Am J Crim Just 47 , 1050–1070 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09712-6

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2022

Accepted : 01 December 2022

Published : 20 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09712-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Criminal justice reform
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

The Pros and Cons of Life Imprisonment and the Death Penalty

This essay about the contrasting implications of life imprisonment and the death penalty examines their roles as mechanisms of retribution and deterrence in the criminal justice system. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of each, highlighting life imprisonment as an opportunity for redemption and a reversible option, and the death penalty as a potent deterrent but an irreversible and morally contentious choice. The discussion emphasizes the need for careful consideration of justice and morality in choosing appropriate punitive measures.

How it works

Navigating the labyrinth of justice, the dichotomy between life imprisonment and the death penalty sparks profound discourse, as both stand as bastions of retribution and deterrence within the criminal justice system. Delving into their nuances illuminates a tapestry of advantages and pitfalls, igniting fervent debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and the populace. Here, we embark on an odyssey through the pros and cons of these divergent paths of punishment.

Life Imprisonment:

A Beacon of Hope: Within the confines of life imprisonment lies the glimmer of redemption.

In this journey, offenders traverse the path of rehabilitation, seeking absolution and transformation. Over time, some may find solace in remorse, striving to contribute positively to the tapestry of society.

The Antidote to Irreversible Justice: Unlike its counterpart, life imprisonment presents a safety net against the precipice of irreversible mistakes. Should the scales of justice tilt askew with new revelations or the unveiling of wrongful convictions, the shackles of incarceration can be unbound, offering restitution to the unjustly accused.

The Frugal Alternative: Contrary to popular belief, the fiscal ledger favors life behind bars. The convoluted labyrinth of appeals and legal fees tethered to death penalty cases incurs a weighty toll on taxpayers’ coffers, making life imprisonment a more economically prudent choice in the long haul.

A Testament to Humanity: Opting for life imprisonment over the death penalty echoes a resounding affirmation of human dignity. It reverberates with the belief in the potential for redemption and underscores the intrinsic worth of every soul, irrespective of their past transgressions.

The Hollow Echo of Justice: For the victims and their kin, life imprisonment may ring hollow, bereft of the closure that the ultimate penalty affords. The absence of a final reckoning may leave wounds unhealed, shadows lingering in the corridors of justice.

The Specter of Recidivism: Despite the veneer of rehabilitation, the specter of recidivism looms large. Within the crucible of incarceration, the embers of past misdeeds may reignite, casting doubt on the efficacy of redemption and posing a potential threat to public safety.

Strain on Correctional Bastions: Life imprisonment places a strain on the bulwarks of correctional institutions. The perpetual housing, healthcare, and sustenance of lifers tax the already burdened resources, casting shadows on the quality of life for both denizens and custodians of the carceral realm.

The Abyss of Despair: Condemning souls to an eternity behind bars can beget a descent into the abyss of despair. The gnawing tendrils of hopelessness may sap the resolve for rehabilitation, casting asunder the prospect of societal reintegration.

The Death Penalty:

A Sentinel of Deterrence: Advocates tout the death penalty as a bulwark against the tide of crime, casting a shadow of fear over potential perpetrators. The looming specter of capital punishment serves as a stark deterrent, dissuading individuals from traversing the path of transgression.

The Pinnacle of Justice: For some, the death penalty stands as the apex of justice, offering a semblance of closure and retribution for victims and their kin. The finality of the sentence draws a curtain on the saga of suffering, providing a cathartic denouement to the theater of justice.

The Culler of Costs: Contrary to conventional wisdom, the ledger may tilt in favor of the death penalty. Streamlining the appeals process and expediting executions may yield cost savings, offering a pragmatic solution to the fiscal conundrum plaguing the halls of justice.

A Terminal Verdict: The death penalty ensures that the most heinous of offenders face the ultimate reckoning for their deeds. The irrevocable nature of the sentence begets a sense of closure, drawing a line in the sand and heralding the denouement of the saga of justice.

The Guillotine of Innocence: The specter of wrongful executions casts a pall over the hallowed halls of justice. Despite safeguards, the specter of erroneous convictions haunts the annals of the death penalty, rendering it a harbinger of injustice rather than a beacon of retribution.

A Moral Quandary: The death penalty unfurls a tapestry of moral and ethical quandaries, questioning the sanctity of life and the hubris of state-sanctioned retribution. The specter of cruel and unusual punishment looms large, casting aspersions on the moral fabric of society.

The Capricious Hand of Justice: Critics decry the death penalty as a capricious arbiter, swayed by the tempests of race, class, and geography. The specter of arbitrariness erodes the legitimacy of the sentence, rending asunder the veil of justice.

The Ephemeral Curtain: Unlike its counterpart, the death penalty offers no reprieve, no glimmer of hope for redemption or rehabilitation. Once the die is cast, the narrative of the condemned reaches its terminus, shrouded in the pall of finality.

In summation, the discourse surrounding life imprisonment and the death penalty transcends mere rhetoric, delving into the very fabric of justice and morality. Each path presents its own labyrinth of complexities, beckoning stakeholders to navigate the murky waters of retribution and redemption. As we traverse this odyssey, let us heed the clarion call of reason and empathy, seeking solace in the pursuit of a fair and equitable criminal justice system.

Cite this page

The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 2 May. 2024]

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 2-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Criminal Justice Essay

Parker’s crime control model, packer’s due process model, best model for americans interest, reference list.

The two models -crime control and due process- put forward by Hebert Parker have a major bearing on the criminal justice system greatly. The models have been useful in helping to deal with the complexities in the criminal process. The models make it easier to understand the workings of the justice system by simplifying the values underlying the process.

The two modes have both similar and different values but the major difference between the two is that the due process model concerns itself with the protection of individual rights while the rime control model advocates for societal security as well as order. The focus of the paper will be on the overview and analysis of the two models. In addition, it shall look at which model serves American citizens better.

The crime control model has the following main assertions. The fundamental goal of the criminal process should be to repress crime. The police should have the authority to conduct arrests and do fact- finding. Suspects are guilty until proven otherwise. The mode suggests that the main aim of the justice system is protecting the rights of victims and not making the defendants and their rights a priority.

The criminal process should operate smoothly and swiftly and the main goal of the criminal justice process should be uncovering the truth and establishing factual guilt of the arrestees (Packer, 1968).

The main assumption of the crime control model is to repress crime in the criminal process. The model draws it authority from the legislature and not the courts. Crime control guarantees social freedom and helps to maintain law and order in the society. Applying the model helps to protect the people together with their property from harm.

The model asserts that lack of proper law enforcement is tantamount to breakdown in the public order and consequently the loss of human freedom. If the laws are not reinforced and leads to a perception that there is a failure in apprehending and convicting criminals in the criminal process.

Consequently, a disregard for legal control sets in and innocent citizens become victims of unwarranted invasions to their interests. The increased rate of crimes hinders the members of the society from enjoying their freedom thus limiting their liberty. The model fundamental value is guaranteeing social freedom to the members of the society through the criminal process (Packer, 1968).

To guarantee social freedom the crime control model advocates for efficiency within the criminal process to identify criminal suspects, determine their guilt and take appropriate actions in terms of convictions. Packer was of the opinion that a strong police force could contain crime for the known crimes (1968). However, it is important to note that many numbers of crimes go unreported and thus the efficiency of the model in crime suppression is questionable.

For the model to be considered successful, the rate of catching criminals and bringing them to convictions must be high. For this reason, the model relies heavily on legislature instead of the courts to speed up the process as cases in courts may take a very long time before their conclusion. To achieve speed and finality in the criminal process, the process must be efficient and allow the cases to proceed without undue delays.

The speedy progress in the crime control model happens because the methods used are informal hence reducing chances of delaying cases by following the formal methods that might be challenged and waste time trying to prove the challenges. The typical formal processes of cases should be removed because they slow down the speed of cases.

The process can be made simple and fast by interrogating suspects at the police stations instead of taking them to court where they go through the formal process that involves time-consuming examinations and cross-examinations (Packer, 1968).

The model advocates for an extrajudicial process to a judicial process. Informal operations should be employed in the criminal process, as they are faster unlike the formal operations that follow many rituals. The assumption of the model is operating, as managerial models where different activities go on from one-step to another seamlessly just like a conveyer belt.

In other words, the crime control mode is perceived as a screening process where each stage leads to a successful finality. To achieve the successful convictions the model screens cases at the initial stage and using expertise it can be determined which suspects are likely to be guilty or not.

Those who have a high likelihood of being guilty are taken through the successive process expeditiously and a conclusion arrived at sooner. On the other hand, those cases that have minimal or no likelihood of being found guilty are thrown out of the process.

The police perform the task of fact finding in stations or in the streets and do not rely on judges and lawyers in courts. The crime control model relies on factual guilt, which is brought by the police through their fact find and used as evidence to prove that a suspect is guilty without a doubt (Roach, 1999).

The basis for screening the cases is the guilty assumption. The arrestees are guilty according to this model until their innocence can be proved. Thus, according to the model, arrestees are considered guilty and hence the government has the responsibility of punishing them. Moreover, law enforcement agencies prefer this model because they treat the suspects as if guilty and thus should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted for breaking the law.

In this case, the police have powers to make arrests and establish whether arrestees are factually guilty (Roach 1999). However, some limitations are set on the interrogation methods to ensure their reliability by the police because coerced confessions would lead to incarceration of innocent people.

The arrestees are barred from contacting their lawyers as this would only lead to delays and those who are guilty might get off the hook by following their lawyers advice. They say that a lawyer should not come to the station as his or her place is reserved in the courtroom.

Moreover, the police should have the authority to conduct arbitrarily searches on suspects because only the guilty would have anything to hide. The evidence obtained illegally should be acceptable during trial because evidence such as drugs or stolen property is a proof of crime regardless of the methods used to obtain them (Roach 1999).

The due process works on the following assumptions. Reduce the power of the police to prevent them from abusing innocent people. Suspects are innocent until proven otherwise. Protect the rights of the defendants in the criminal justice process. The constitutional rights of every individual should be upheld by the criminal justice authorities for instance, the fourth amendment, which prohibits arbitrary searches.

The criminal process should have obstacles that safeguard the defendant from until proven factually guilty. The government should refrain from considering people guilty based on facts until they go through legal procedures to prove their guilt.

Unlike the crime control model that resembles a conveyer belt in its smooth operations, the due process model is an obstacle belt. It has stages designed in such a way that they impede the case from going up further through the process. The model relies on the Supreme Court to validate its operations as well as on courts restrictions in the criminal process (Roach, 1999).

The aim of the due processes is to ensure that defendants are treated fairly by the criminal justice system by relying less on efficiency unlike the crime control model.

The due process lays emphasis on equal treatment of defendants or suspects in spite of their social or economic class. For instance, all have a right for counsel representation. Thus, those people who are arrested are allowed to call their lawyers. The suspects who cannot afford a lawyer, the government appoints one on their behalf because the due process objective is to accord equal protection even to the disadvantaged members of the society.

The due process does not allow police to find facts in stations and in the streets to convict the arrestees. The suspects are treated fairly and Miranda rights made known to them during their arrest.

This will prevent them from giving information to the police that is self-incriminatory and can be used against them in trial. The police should not take advantage of a suspect to get a confession to build a case against them. This step is taken to reduce the instances when police arrest people and sentence them before taking them through the legal criminal process.

The police do not have the right to detain people as they do their fact-finding, they can find the facts then make the arrest unless when there is reason to believe that they will not attend trial (Roach, 1999). The due process does not rely solely on the ability of the police of conducting investigations because the process can be faulty as it is not error-proof.

Packer says that people are poor in observing disturbing events and their recollection of the events maybe incorrect and the confessions that arrestees make in stations maybe because of coercion and the police may end up listening to what they may want to hear instead of seeing the truth (1968).

The witnesses of the criminal events maybe biased and against the accused and the police would not work towards finding the truth to its logical conclusion because protecting them is not their primary responsibility. Hence, the due process rejects the informal processes of fact-finding.

The model insists on formal fact-finding processes where an impartial tribunal listens to a case. Moreover, the model provides an opportunity for defendants to bring civil actions against police abuse or violation of their rights. The model also gives the defendant an opportunity to discredit the case set before them before making its ruling.

The model also recognizes that there is a possibility of making an error during the criminal process and allows further scrutiny of facts in case the truth was overlooked in the proceedings. As long as the defendant can prove that an error was made during, the criminal process scrutiny can be allowed. The due process model does not demand finality like the crime control does because the aim is not to conclude cases but ensure that the process is fair as possible to the defendant (Packer, 1968).

The arrestees are innocent until their guilt is proven according to this model. It therefore follows that a criminal process should be conducted in such a way that the defendant is proved either innocent or guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor and the judges should not encourage the defendants to enter guilty pleas during pre-trials by offering them deals. The criminal process should not be looked at as a burden that has to be done away with by entering pleas rather as a proper way process in the criminal justice system.

The due process recommends that the criminal trial establish that a defendant is legally guilty beyond any shadow of doubt instead of proving factual guilt (Packer, 1968). The model urges that the police cannot do this but only judges and defense lawyers in a court of law can (Roach, 1999; Packer, 1968).

The American citizens ought to have an effective justice system. The strategy for ensuring that the justice system is effective has been debated for many years. The two criminal processes modes proposed by Herbert Packer have been debated for long because they represent two philosophies- conservative and liberal.

The crime control model advocates for a safe society where there is law and order and its philosophy is conservative. On the other hand, there is the due process model that advocates for the protection of the rights of people from any form of injustice and this perspective is liberal in nature.

The political climate determines which model is favored by the society at a particular time. The two positions are in conflict and the justice system has had to choose one over the other over time. However, choosing one model to follow is not easy because various people have different opinions.

The due process appears to be the best model for the American citizens. Some propose the due process model that seeks to protect individual freedoms. In this process, the arrestees do not lose their right to be treated well as they are taken to be innocent. The law enforcers uphold the constitutional guarantees of the individuals and thus protect innocent people from being convicted wrongfully.

The mode is good because many people have been convicted wrongful and served behind bars for crimes they did not commit. For example, Cornelius Dupree was exonerated after serving thirty years behind bars in Texas following a DNA exam.

The due process for allowing the contest of the rulings against defendants gives them an opportunity to make appeals that may actually result in their exoneration. Moreover, this provision makes the American people feel that the justice system is fair in its treatment of all citizens because the constitution protects all American citizens regardless of their race and ethnicity.

Therefore, the American citizens are protected against racial profiling even though this may not be the case on the ground. Through the due process, the justice system puts checks and balances upon itself to prevent the government from treating the citizens arbitrarily.

Those who oppose the due process say that it puts the rights of the defendants and completely ignores the victims of crimes. Moreover, the law enforcers say that the Fourth Amendment in the constitution makes it hard for them to carry out their activities of crime prevention as it limits them from conducting raids and searches.

The limitations arise from the various interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the courts. The interpretations change over time making the work of the law enforcers hard because of the confusion that ensues thereof.

Not only do the police have to consider the fourth amendment, but also the individual rights outlined in the bill of rights such as right to an attorney, assume an individual innocent until proven otherwise amongst others. In addition, the due process limits how far the government can go in treating and individual because the constitution allows individual a right to privacy.

On the contrary, the due process follows the criminal process formally thus giving any American arrestee an opportunity to go through the process and through their legal counsel present evidence to the court that may prevent them from going to jail.

Moreover, the obstacles in the process ensure that they are not sentenced prematurely before the cases are exhausted completely before they are either found to be innocent or guilty.

The due process model unlike the crime control model which advocates for speedy prosecutions and convictions and relies heavily of the evidence of the police through their fact-finding acknowledges that the police can be wrong and thus does not rely on factual guilt but legal guilt proved in a court of law.

The due process is far more realistic than the crime control model, which seems to infringe upon the ideals contained in the declaration of independence and ideals held dear by the American citizens.

Packer, H. (1968). The limits of criminal sanctions . New York: University of Stanford Press.

Roach, K. (1999). Four Models of the criminal process. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 89 (2), p 671.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). Criminal Justice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/criminal-justice/

"Criminal Justice." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/criminal-justice/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Criminal Justice'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Criminal Justice." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/criminal-justice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Criminal Justice." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/criminal-justice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Criminal Justice." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/criminal-justice/.

ZZ Packer’s “Drinking Coffee Elsewhere”
Cultural and Racial Prejudices in the Criminal Justice System
Clinical Information System's Life Cycle
DNA Evidence: The Case of the Golden State Killer
ZZ Packer' Stories Comparison
James Packer's Model of Preaching
Dangerous Racial Tension in “Brownies” by ZZ Packer
Should Marijuana Drugs Be Decriminalized?
The "Brownies" Short Story by ZZ Packer
Crime Control Perspective & the Due Process Perspective
How Judges Think at a Criminal Trial
Persuasive Piece: A White Paper
History of Pension Abuses
Juvenile Delinquency
Homeland Security: Collecting Information about Terrorism

IMAGES

Essay on Criminal Justice System
≫ Analysis of Criminal Justice System Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Criminal justice
Criminal Justice Essay
Criminal Justice Essay Sample
How To Write A Criminal Justice Paper

VIDEO

CSS/PMS || Criminology Lect.1 By Sir Raja Shahroze Abbas
KR: Barangay Justice System Part 1
Integrity, Authority, and Discretionary Powers in Criminal Justice
The Criminal Justice System and Government Responsibility
Strain Theory and Merton's Anomie Theory in Criminal Justice

COMMENTS

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
Her most recent book is titled Teaching Introduction to Criminology (2019). David E. Carter joined the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department in 2008. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. Dave served in the U.S. Army for 8 years as a linguist prior to attending school.
How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical
In this essay, we seek to promote productive thinking and talking about, as well as designing of, effective and sustainable criminal justice reforms. ... As the criminal justice system exploded in size in the latter half of the twentieth century, its impacts have not spread equally across the population. Black, Latino, and Indigenous ...
PDF Criminal Justice System: Aims and Processes
learn about the criminal justice system and form impressions, often inaccurate, about its practices in Australia. A more accurate term for . criminal justice system would be a "collection of interdependent justice agencies", each having its own function. As Davies, Croall and Tyrer (2005: 10) observe, "the criminal law does not enforce ...
PDF 1 an Introduction to Crime and The Criminal Justice System
Crime and the criminal justice system commonly are sensationalized in the books we read, the television shows we watch, and the gruesome headline news stories we see daily. The real stories in the criminal justice system can be complex, and each case touches individuals in far-reaching ways. The goal of this book is to demonstrate how the system
Finding Humanity in Our Criminal Justice System
A young man in a hooded sweatshirt stepped up to the car's driver's-side window, raised an automatic pistol to the glass, and started shooting. By the time the shooter finished, 21 cartridges ...
A better path forward for criminal justice: Conclusion
The essays in this volume and the recommended supplemental readings provide much food for thought about the major areas of criminal justice reform that should be at the top of the nation's ...
Guide to the U.S. Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system adheres to policies and practices that exist to uphold justice and keep people safe. The criminal justice system operates to prevent crime and punish law offenders under the governing jurisdiction. The criminal justice system is the complicated network of legal subsystems at the federal, local, and state level in the ...
Free Criminal Justice Essays and Research Papers on
Essay Title 1: Reforming the Criminal Justice System: Challenges, Progress, and the Road Ahead. Thesis Statement: This essay examines the challenges within the criminal justice system, the progress made in recent years, and the ongoing efforts required to reform and ensure a fair and equitable system for all. Outline: Introduction
American Criminal Justice: a Review Essay
AA REVIEW ESSAY ROBERT V. STOVER*. Hardly anyone who has systematically studied the American criminal. justice system in recent years is satisfied with the way it works. In the past. decade or two, social scientists, attorneys, administrators, journalists, and political activists have produced immense bodies of literature on the police ...
PDF A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice
toward a criminal justice system—police, courts, prison, reentry, community supervision—that is focused ... The essays in this volume are intended to provide policymakers in Congress and the ...
Core of Criminal Justice System
Core of Criminal Justice System. At the core of the criminal justice system is the delivery of justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent. It is responsible for detecting crime and bringing it to justice; and carrying out the orders of the court, such as collecting ...
Causes and Effects of Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System
Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system has been a focus of much criminological research for over a century. These articles were submitted and accepted before the current crisis and were awaiting publication in future issues of Justice Quarterly. We thought bringing them together in one 'themed' issue in a timely way would have ...
Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities
In this essay, I offer some reflections based on my nearly 40 years of evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. 1. Go to: Part I: Waging "War". The landscape of criminal justice reform sits at the intersection of criminal behavior and legal system response. Perceptions of crime drive policy responses.
AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
most research on the police, prosecution and defense, criminal courts, and corrections lends support to one or both of two fundamental propositions: (1) there is a large gap between written legal norms that presumably define the operation of the criminal justice system and what actually happens in the daily administration of criminal law; and (2) criminal justice in the united states is based ...
Criminal Justice Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas
195 essay samples found. Essay topics on criminal justice are not easy. It requires much research and knowledge of the justice system of a particular country and the law rights of residents. This topic combines much information, but you should focus on one to reveal it well in your essay. For example, you can write about the United States ...
Accountability for Criminal Justice: Selected Essays
Another essay focuses on the role of the media in providing accountability for criminal justice, since the media are the main purveyors of public information about the criminal justice system. Other essays address accountability for specific agencies, organizations, and offices that form essential parts of the criminal justice system.
The History and Transformation of Criminal Justice System Essay
Criminal justice system is also one of the most formidable steps taken in this direction, which consists of practices, procedures and institutions involved in maintaining law and order in the perfect decorum. Abnormal attitude creating public nuisance was declared as crime against the state and its individuals, and the institutions of criminal ...
304 Criminal Justice Essay Topics & Examples
Leadership in the Criminal Justice System. For example, the criminal justice system uses goals to task the police, correctional agencies, and the court with the strategy to execute, including deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, restoration, and incapacitation. The Criminal Justice Core Competency.
The Criminal Justice System
The Criminal Justice System Definition Essay. The ability of a country to uphold social control, prevent, and extenuate crime depends on the organization of its criminal justice system. For a criminal justice system to achieve its mandate, it must have specific components, which must coordinate to achieve the overall role of reducing crime.
Criminal Justice Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Criminal Justice Trends The trends of the past, present and future that outline the borders connecting the criminal justice system components and their links adjoining the society is, beyond doubt, an authentic relationship that the law and society have established. Criminal justice has been affected by various trends in the times gone by. This is because trends keep changing with the passage ...
How black, white Americans differ in views of criminal justice system
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, around nine-in-ten black adults (87%) said blacks are generally treated less fairly by the criminal justice system than whites, a view shared by a much smaller majority of white adults (61%). And in a survey shortly before last year's midterm elections, 79% of blacks - compared with 32% of whites ...
Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies
The footprint of the legal system in the United States is expansive. Applying psychological and neuroscience research to understand or predict individual criminal behavior is problematic.
Essay on Criminal Justice System
100 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System Introduction to Criminal Justice System. The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law. It has three main parts: the police, courts, and corrections. These parts work together to prevent and punish criminal activities.
Pretext, Deception and Entrapment in Criminal Investigations
The chapter concludes with comparative reflections on domestic law experiences and their implications for procedural models, legal culture, jurisprudential principles, and conceptions of legitimate political authority in criminal justice.
How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and ...
The criminal justice "system" in the United States is something of a misnomer. There is no single, centralized system. Instead, there are at least 51 separate systems—one for each of the 50 states, and the federal criminal justice system—each with different laws, policies, and administrative arrangements.
Process of the Criminal Justice System
Ms. Sufferer, the criminal justice process, involves making sure that an individual receives justice, and those who are guilty are judged accordingly. According to our Constitution and Amendments, the criminal justice process also ensures that an innocent person is free from having an unfair trial. The process starts by arresting a person to ...
The Pros and Cons of Life Imprisonment and the Death Penalty
Essay Example: Navigating the labyrinth of justice, the dichotomy between life imprisonment and the death penalty sparks profound discourse, as both stand as bastions of retribution and deterrence within the criminal justice system. Delving into their nuances illuminates a tapestry of advantages. Essay Example: Navigating the labyrinth of ...
Mrs. G's Objectification Of The Criminal Justice System
Objectification The final theme White identified, objectification, explores the way Mrs. G's story was fundamentally shaped by the near-formulaic standardization of a lawyer-centric criminal justice system. White describes how Mrs. G's lawyer taught her to tailor her story to fit the narrative the legal system upheld. Mrs.
Criminal justice
Criminal Justice Essay. The two models -crime control and due process- put forward by Hebert Parker have a major bearing on the criminal justice system greatly. The models have been useful in helping to deal with the complexities in the criminal process. The models make it easier to understand the workings of the justice system by simplifying ...

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

Finding Humanity in Our Criminal Justice System

More Must-Reads From TIME

Guide to the U.S. Criminal Justice System

What Is the Criminal Justice System?

Law Enforcement in the United States

Federal Law Enforcement

DOJ Agencies

DHS Agencies

State Law Enforcement

Local and Municipal Law Enforcement

Court and Legal Systems in the United States

State Courts

Federal Courts

Corrections in the United States

Tribal Law in the United States

How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?

1) Entry Into the Criminal Justice System

2) Prosecution and Pretrial

3) Trial Process

4) Corrections

Careers in Criminal Justice

Police and Detectives

Correctional Officers and Bailiffs

Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists

Forensic Science Technicians

Sociologists

Postsecondary Teachers

Frequently Asked Questions About the Criminal Justice System

How has the criminal justice system changed over time?

What is the definition of “justice” in the criminal justice system?

What is the purpose of the U.S criminal justice system?

Is the FBI part of the criminal justice system?

Essays on Criminal Justice

Essay Title 2: Criminal Justice and Civil Rights: Analyzing the Intersection, Historical Struggles, and Contemporary Debates

Essay Title 3: International Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Comparative Analysis of Legal Systems and Global Challenges

Most Popular Criminal Justice Essay Topics in 2024

Matthew Desmond’s Eviction: a Critical Analysis

The Case Study of Jay Wilds: a Critical Analysis

Victimology: Concept, Definition, Paradigms and Paradoxes

The U.s. Criminal Justice System and Its Phases

Relevant topics

NCJRS Virtual Library

No download available

Regions & Countries

From police to parole, black and white Americans differ widely in their views of criminal justice system

The death penalty

Parole decisions

Voting rights for ex-felons

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

Research Topics

Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience

Introduction

Criminal legal system aspects of interest

Solitary confinement

Redefining the legal concept of insanity

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Peer review

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Essay on Criminal Justice System

100 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The Role of Police

The Court System

Corrections and Punishment

Importance of the Criminal Justice System

250 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The Role of the Police