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

one px

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

Gangs in Inner City Community

Douglas hay's "england's fatal tree": summary, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Matthew Desmond’s Eviction: 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, punishing the unforgivable: a study of capital punishment, 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
  • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Mass Incarceration
  • Criminal Behavior
  • Juvenile Justice System
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Profiling
  • Criminal Investigation
  • Criminology

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

essay of criminal justice system

Library Home

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

(20 reviews)

essay of criminal justice system

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

Copyright Year: 2019

Publisher: Open Oregon Educational Resources

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Attribution-ShareAlike

Learn more about reviews.

essay of criminal justice system

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

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... read more

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... read more

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

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 others.

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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

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. Also, life-course theory was never mentioned.

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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... read more

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.... read more

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

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 additional topics, it just needs to acknowledge they are part of the field.

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... read more

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... read more

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 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.

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.

Table of Contents

  • 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

A better path forward for criminal justice: Conclusion

Subscribe to governance weekly, rashawn ray and rashawn ray senior fellow - governance studies @sociologistray brent orrell brent orrell senior fellow - american enterprise institute @orrellaei.

Below is the conclusion from “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice,” a report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. You can access other chapters from the report here .

As we write this report, the high-profile failures of the criminal justice system remain front and center in news coverage and the nation’s public policy agenda. The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd draws our attention to how police authority continues to be a frequent threat to life and well-being, especially for low-income individuals and people of color. The police killing of Daunte Wright in a Minneapolis suburb further fuels community distrust and racial division in the Twin Cities and around the country.

At the same time, we are seeing a sudden and disturbing spike in criminal activity and violent offenses in our major urban areas. This spike has variously been attributed to social stress related to the pandemic, a declining willingness of police forces (in the wake of the Floyd death and subsequent civil unrest) to risk potentially dangerous confrontations with individuals committing crimes, and a growing unwillingness among prosecutors to try lower-level offenses thus implicitly encouraging worse ones.

As we prepare to exit pandemic conditions, we recommend a strategic pause to gather data that will help us understand why criminal activity has gone up and inform both immediate responses as well as longer-term reform initiatives. There will be a temptation – on both sides – to argue that the recent spike confirms their prior understandings and policy preferences; either that the recent burst of crime can be effectively controlled by a ratcheting up “tough-on-crime” policies and practices or that it is exactly these practices that create the predicate for crime surges by disrupting lives, families, and neighborhoods through excessive reliance on force and incarceration. We should resist both of these views while we strive for a better understanding of the forces driving and shaping patterns of criminal offenses. It is entirely possible, given the unprecedented conditions of the past 12 months, we will find ourselves surprised by what we learn.

As is often the case, we may need an “and” approach rather than an “or” approach. Policies need to address recent rises in crime and overpolicing. This is why our report focuses on the criminal justice as a whole. Policing is the entree to the criminal justice system that sorts people based on race, social class, and place. Most people do not want less policing. They want equitable policing, and equitable treatment once interacting with the criminal justice system, either as a victim or perpetrator.

Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

The sources of criminal activity and public safety challenges are multifaceted while our responses to them are often singular: more and tougher policing, prosecution, and incarceration. Not every public order challenge is a nail in need of a hammer. If we are to honor the dignity of every person and respect the sanctity of human life, we need a more balanced and diversified approach that recognizes confrontation and coercion are not the only, and often not the best, strategies for protecting our communities. Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

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 agenda. The recommendations are varied and informed by differing perspectives on how to better balance the requirements of community safety, civil liberty, policing and procedural protections, and supporting and achieving lasting changes in attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes among justice-involved individuals as befits a nation committed to the idea of rehabilitation and not just retribution. The authors in this volume will continue convening to discuss, debate, and research these complex issues, with a shared goal of identifying ways to improve our country’s criminal justice system. These are deeply interconnected issues requiring a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive response rather than an immediate reversion to long-held and -argued views that may fit recent history or current conditions. A nation that incarcerates so many at such a high cost in public resources and wasted human lives can ill-afford to do otherwise.

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusion and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. AEI does not take institutional positions on any issues.

Support for this publication was generously provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of its authors and do not represent the views of the Foundation, their officers, or employees.

Governance Studies

William G. Gale

March 13, 2024

Cameron F. Kerry

March 11, 2024

Elaine Kamarck

February 29, 2024

Advertisement

Advertisement

Criminal Justice Reform and Inequality

  • Published: 14 December 2022
  • Volume 47 , pages 1186–1203, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

  • Sara Wakefield   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1120-4266 1  

791 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The criminal legal system is a “stratifying institution” insofar as it reflects inequalities by selecting already marginalized people into the system, worsens existing inequalities via a host of criminal punishment and conditions of confinement mechanisms, and creates new inequalities through patterns of isolation for formerly incarcerated people and spillover effects for those close to them. Because it is impossible to separate mass criminalization from the patterns of inequality that precede it and ill-advised to treat inequalities created by mass criminalization as somehow separate from much longer legacies of marginalization and social exclusion, the prospects for criminal justice reform are difficult to predict. This essay suggests that criminal justice reform strategies centered on harm reduction might reasonably reduce how much criminal justice involvement worsens existing inequalities or creates new ones. Dramatically reducing inequalities in initial contacts with the system will be more difficult because that would require significant investments and improvements in other social systems. Moreover, because the criminal legal system is not a system at all, reform efforts must be multi-pronged and target all parts of the system to appreciably reduce inequality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Agan, A. Y., Doleac, J. L., & Harvey, A. (2021). Misdemeanor Prosecution (Working Paper No. 28600). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness . The New Press.

Google Scholar  

Apel, R. (2016). The effects of jail and prison confinement on cohabitation and marriage. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665 (1), 103–126.

Article   Google Scholar  

Avent-Holt, D., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2010). The relational basis of inequality: Generic and contingent wage distribution processes. Work and Occupations, 37 (2), 162–193.

Bares, K. J., & Mowen, T. J. (2020). Examining the parole officer as a mechanism of social support during reentry from prison. Crime & Delinquency, 66 (6–7), 1023–1051.

Barno, M., Martínez, D. N., & Williams, K. R. (2020). Exploring alternatives to cash bail: An evaluation of orange county’s Pretrial Assessment and Release Supervision (PARS) program. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45 (3), 363–378.

Bartos, B. J., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety? Criminology & Public Policy, 17 (3), 693–715.

Baumer, E. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30 (2), 231–261.

Beckett, K. (1999). Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics (Revised edition). Oxford University Press.

Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006). Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery arrests. Criminology , 44 (1), 105–137.

Bell, M. C. (2017). Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. The Yale Law Journal, 126 , 2054–2150.

Bell, M. C., Beckett, K., & Stuart, F. (2020). Investing in alternatives: Three logics of criminal system replacement symposium: From police reform to public safety. UC Irvine Law Review, 11 (5), 1291–1326.

Ben-Moshe, L., Chapman, C., & Carey, A. (Eds.). (2014). Disability Incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada (2014th edition). Palgrave Macmillan.

Bittner, E. (1974). Florence Nightingale in Pursuit of Willie Sutton: A Theory of the Police. In H. Jacob (Ed.), The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice (vol. 3, pp. 11–44). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bjornstrom, E. E. S., Kaufman, R. L., Peterson, R. D., & Slater, M. D. (2010). Race and ethnic representations of lawbreakers and victims in crime news: A national study of television coverage. Social Problems, 57 (2), 269–293.

Blumstein, A. (1967). Systems analysis and the criminal justice system. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374 (1), 92–100.

Brame, R., Bushway, S., Paternoster, R., & Turner, M. G. (2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime & Delinquency , 60 .

Burton, A. L., Cullen, F. T., Pickett, J. T., Burton, V. S., Jr., & Thielo, A. J. (2021). Beyond the eternal criminal record: Public support for expungement. Criminology & Public Policy, 20 (1), 123–151.

Butler, L. C., Cullen, F. T., Burton, A. L., Thielo, A. J., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (2020). Redemption at a correctional turning point: Public support for rehabilitation ceremonies. Federal Probation, 84 (1), 38–47.

Calathes, W. (2017). Racial capitalism and punishment philosophy and practices: What really stands in the way of prison abolition. Contemporary Justice Review, 20 (4), 442–455.

Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System (pp. 17–30). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Clair, M. (2020). Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Matter in Criminal Court . Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Clear, T. R. (2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on communities. Crime and Justice, 37 (1), 97–132.

Cobbina, J. (2019). Hands Up, Don’t Shoot: Why the Protests in Ferguson and Baltimore Matter, and How They Changed America . NYU Press.

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41 (4), 252–261.

Comfort, M. (2007). Punishment beyond the legal offender. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3 (1), 271–284.

Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. M. (2019). Indigenous peoples, criminology, and criminal justice. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 (1), 359–381.

Dee, T. S., & Pyne, J. (2022). A community-response approach to mental-health and substance-abuse crises reduced crime. Science Advances, 8 (eabm2106), 1–9.

Dilulio, J. (2019). The coming of the super-predators. The Weekly Standard, 1 (November), 23–29.

DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32 (1), 271–297.

DiPrete, T. A., & Fox-Williams, B. N. (2021). The relevance of inequality research in sociology for inequality reduction. Socius, 7 , 1–30.

Dobbie, W., Goldin, J., & Yang, C. S. (2018). The effects of pre-trial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. American Economic Review, 108 (2), 201–240.

Dumont, D. M., Brockmann, B., Dickman, S., Alexander, N., & Rich, J. D. (2012). Public health and the epidemic of incarceration. Annual Review of Public Health, 33 (1), 325–339.

Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (34), 16793–16798.

Edwards, F., Wakefield, S., Healy, K., & Wildeman, C. (2021). Contact with child protective services is pervasive but unequally distributed by race and ethnicity in large US counties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (30), e2106272118.

Enns, P. K., Yi, Y., Comfort, M., Goldman, A. W., Lee, H., Muller, C., Wakefield, S., Wang, E. A., & Wildeman, C. (2019). What percentage of Americans have ever had a family member incarcerated? Evidence from the Family History of Incarceration Survey (FamHIS). Socius, 5 , 1–45.

Farrer, T. J., & Hedges, D. W. (2011). Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in incarcerated groups compared to the general population: A meta-analysis. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 35 (2), 390–394.

Finlay, K., & Mueller-Smith, M. (2021). Criminal Justice Administrative Records System (CJARS) .  https://cjars.isr.umich.edu/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2022.

Finlay, K., Mueller-Smith, M., & Street, B. (2022). Measuring Intergenerational Exposure to the U.S. Justice System: Evidence from Longitudinal Links between Survey and Administrative Data .  https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mgms/wp-content/uploads/sites/283/2022/06/CJARS_KidExposure_20220609.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2022.

Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015). Punishment regimes and the multilevel effects of parental incarceration: Intergenerational, intersectional, and interinstitutional models of social inequality and systemic exclusion. Annual Review of Sociology, 41 (1), 135–158.

Garland, D. (2001). The meaning of mass imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 3 , 5–7.

Geller, A. (2021). Youth‒police contact: Burdens and inequities in an adverse childhood experience, 2014‒2017. American Journal of Public Health , 111 (7), 1300–1308.

Geller, A., & Fagan, J. (2019). Police contact and the legal socialization of urban teens. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (1), 26–49.

Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California . University of California Press.

Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85 (3), 259–286.

Haney, C. (2018). Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (1), 285–310.

Harcourt, B. E. (2015). Risk as a proxy for race: The dangers of risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27 (4), 237–243.

Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., Nguyen, A. P., & Bushway, S. D. (2018). Imprisonment and labor market outcomes: Evidence from a national experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 124 (1), 49–110.

Haskins, A. R., & Jacobsen, W. C. (2017). Schools as surveilling institutions? Paternal incarceration, system avoidance, and parental involvement in schooling. American Sociological Review, 82 (4), 657–684.

Hinton, E., & Cook, D. (2021). The mass criminalization of Black Americans: A historical overview. Annual Review of Criminology, 4 (1), 261–286.

Kaba, F., Diamond, P., Haque, A., MacDonald, R., & Venters, H. (2014). Traumatic brain injury among newly admitted adolescents in the New York city jail system. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 54 (5), 615–617.

Kirk, D. S. (2016). Prisoner Reentry and the Reproduction of Legal Cynicism. Social Problems, 63 (2), 222–243.

Kirk, D. S. (2019). Where the other 1 percent live: An examination of changes in the spatial concentration of the formerly incarcerated. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (1), 255–274.

Kirk, D. S., & Papachristos, A. V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (4), 1190–1233.

Kirk, D. S., & Wakefield, S. (2018). Collateral consequences of punishment: A critical review and path forward. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (1), 171–194.

Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2013). Misdemeanor justice: Control without conviction. American Journal of Sociology, 119 (2), 351–393.

Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2019). Misdemeanorland . Princeton University Press.

Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2019). Cumulative disadvantage in the American criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 (1), 291–319.

Lageson, S. E. (2020). Digital Punishment: Privacy, Stigma, and the Harms of Data-Driven Criminal Justice . Oxford University Press.

Lanuza, Y. R., Petersen, N., & Omori, M. (Forthcoming). Colorism in punishment among hispanics in the criminal justice system. Social Problems.

Lee, H., Esposito, M., Edwards, F., Chun, Y., & Grinstein-Weiss, M. (2020). The demographics of racial inequality in the United States.  Brookings .  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/27/the-demographics-of-racial-inequality-in-the-united-states/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2022.

Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2021). Fragile algorithms and fallible decision-makers: Lessons from the justice system. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35 (4), 71–96.

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Wu, X. (2022). Can we really defund the police? A nine-agency study of police response to calls for service. Police Quarterly, 25 (3), 255–280.

Martin, K. D., Sykes, B. L., Shannon, S., Edwards, F., & Harris, A. (2018). Monetary sanctions: Legal financial obligations in US systems of justice. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (1), 471–495.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives . American Psychological Association.

Massoglia, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2015). Incarceration and health. Annual Review of Sociology, 41 (1), 291–310.

McKinley, J. (2020). The Bail Reform Backlash That Has Democrats at War. The New York Times .  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/nyregion/new-york-bail-reform.html . Accessed 15 Nov 2022.

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., Cochran, J. C., & Lindsey, A. M. (2016a). Offending and racial and ethnic disparities in criminal justice: A conceptual framework for guiding theory and research and informing policy. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32 (1), 78–103.

Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016b). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 (3), 953–981.

Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., Romero, A. P., Wilson, B. D. M., & Herman, J. L. (2017). Incarceration rates and traits of sexual minorities in the United States: National inmate survey, 2011–2012. American Journal of Public Health, 107 (2), 267–273.

Miller, S. (2019). Ending prosecutor’s moral hazard in criminal sentencing current developments 2018–2019. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 32 (4), 833–854.

Mueller-Smith, M., & Schnepel, K. T. (2021). Diversion in the criminal justice system. The Review of Economic Studies, 88 (2), 883–936.

Muhammad, K. G. (2019). The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America, With a New Preface (2nd edition). Harvard University Press

Muller, C., Sampson, R. J., & Winter, A. S. (2018). Environmental inequality: The social causes and consequences of lead exposure. Annual Review of Sociology, 44 (1), 263–282.

Murakawa, N., & Beckett, K. (2010). The penology of racial innocence: The erasure of racism in the study and practice of punishment. Law & Society Review, 44 (3–4), 695–730.

Nalani, A., Yoshikawa, H., & Carter, P. L. (2021). Social science-based pathways to reduce social inequality in youth outcomes and opportunities at scale. Socius, 7 , 1–17.

National Academies of Sciences. (2002). The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison . National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences. (2017). Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities .

National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences . National Academies Press.

Novick, R., & Pickett, J. T. (Forthcoming). Black Lives Matter, Protest Policing, and Voter Support for Police Reform in Portland, Oregon. Race and Justice .

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial Formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Petrich, D. M., Pratt, T. C., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2021). Custodial sanctions and reoffending: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Justice, 50 (1), 353–424.

Pettit, B. (2012). Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress . Russell Sage Foundation.

Pettit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review , 69 (2), 151–169.

Peyton, K., Sierra-Arévalo, M., & Rand, D. G. (2019). A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (40), 19894–19898.

Phelps, M. S. (2020). Mass probation from micro to macro: Tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annual Review of Criminology, 3 (1), 261–279.

Reiss, A. J. J. (1981). Towards a revitalization of theory and research on victimization by crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72 , 704.

Reiter, K. (2016). 23/7: Pelican Bay Prison and the Rise of Long-Term Solitary Confinement . Yale University Press.

Remster, B., & Kramer, R. (2018). SHIFTING POWER: the impact of incarceration on political representation. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 15 (2), 417–439.

Rhodes, W., Gaes, G. G., Kling, R., & Cutler, C. (2018). Relationship between prison length of stay and recidivism: A study using regression discontinuity and instrumental variables with multiple break points. Criminology & Public Policy, 17 (3), 731–769.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79 (1), 1–16.

Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography, 54 , 1795–1818.

Sierra-Arévalo, M. (2021). American policing and the danger imperative. Law & Society Review, 55 (1), 70–103.

Soss, J., & Weaver, V. (2017). Police are our government: Politics, political science, and the policing of race-class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science, 20 (1), 565–591.

Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23 (4), 410–420.

Stuart, F. (2016). Becoming “copwise”: Policing, culture, and the collateral consequences of street-level criminalization. Law & Society Review, 50 (2), 279–313.

Tilly, C. (1999). Durable Inequality . University of California Press.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Avent-Holt, D. (2019). Relational Inequalities: An Organizational Approach . Oxford University Press.

Turney, K. (2015). Liminal men: Incarceration and relationship dissolution. Social Problems, 62 , 499–528.

Turney, K., & Wakefield, S. (2019). Criminal Justice Contact and Inequality. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (1), 1–23.

Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review , 67 (6), 777–803.

Wacquant, L. (2000). The new `peculiar institution’: On the prison as surrogate ghetto. Theoretical Criminology, 4 (3), 377–389.

Wakefield, S., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Pretrial detention and the costs of system overreach for employment and family life. Sociological Science, 7 (14), 342–366.

Wakefield, S., & Uggen, C. (2010). Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 36 (1), 387–406.

Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Children of the Prison Boom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality . Oxford University Press.

Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2021). Structural racism, poverty, and sexism shape the history of and response to childhood maltreatment among incarcerated Individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 111 (9), 1581–1583.

Weaver, V. M., Papachristos, A., & Zanger-Tishler, M. (2019). The great decoupling: The disconnection between criminal offending and experience of arrest across two cohorts. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (1), 89–123.

Western, B. (2015). Lifetimes of violence in a sample of released prisoners. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1 (2), 14–30.

Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46 , 265–280.

Wildeman, C. (2020). The intergenerational transmission of criminal justice contact. Annual Review of Criminology, 3 (1), 217–244.

Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Solitary confinement placement and post-release mortality risk among formerly incarcerated individuals: A population-based study. Lancet Public Health, 5 (2), 107–113.

Wildeman, C., & Wang, E. A. (2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. The Lancet, 389 (10077), 1464–1474.

Wozniak, K. H. (2016). Public opinion and the politics of criminal justice policy making: Reasons for optimism, pessimism, and uncertainty. Criminology and Public Policy, 15 (1), 179.

Yi, K. (2022). A Year After NJ Released Thousands Early From Prison, Only 9% Are Back in Custody . Gothamist: New York City Local News, Food, Arts & Events.  https://gothamist.com/news/year-after-nj-released-thousands-early-prison-only-9-are-back-custody . Accessed 15 Nov 2022.

Zhang, M. (2022). Affirmative Algorithms: Relational Equality as Algorithmic Fairness. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 495–507.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author greatly appreciates critical feedback on this essay provided by Daniel Mears, Robert Apel, and Christopher Wildeman.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA

Sara Wakefield

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Wakefield .

Ethics declarations

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

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

Wakefield, S. Criminal Justice Reform and Inequality. Am J Crim Just 47 , 1186–1203 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09717-1

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2022

Accepted : 01 December 2022

Published : 14 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09717-1

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 legal system
  • Stratification and inequality
  • Stratifying institutions
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Logo

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!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Logo of phenaturepg

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Pamela k. lattimore.

RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27703 USA

Associated Data

Data are cited from a variety of sources. Much of the BJS data cited are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. The SVORI data and the Second Chance Act AORDP data are also available from NACJD.

Considerable efforts and resources have been expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system over the last five decades. Concerns about dramatic increases in violent crime beginning in the late Sixties and accelerating into the 1980s led to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that included implementation of more punitive policies and dramatic increases in incarceration and community supervision. More recent reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches. This essay offers some reflections on the “Waged Wars” and the efforts to identify “What Works” based on nearly 40 years of work evaluating criminal justice reform efforts.

The last fifty-plus years have seen considerable efforts and resources expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system. Some of the earliest reforms of this era were driven by dramatic increases in violence leading to more punitive policies. More recently, reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog about reform. The shift may be due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 epidemic or concerns about the United States returning to the escalating rise in violence and homicide in the 1980s and 1990s. Whichever proves true, the current rise of violence, at a minimum, has changed the tenor of policymaker discussions, from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches.

It is, then, an interesting time for those concerned about justice in America. Countervailing forces are at play that have generated a consistent call for reform, but with profound differences in views about what reform should entail. The impetus for reform is myriad: Concerns about the deaths of Black Americans by law enforcement agencies and officers who may employ excessive use of force with minorities; pressures to reduce pretrial incarceration that results in crowded jails and detention of those who have not been found guilty; prison incarcerations rates that remain the highest in the Western world; millions of individuals who live under community supervision and the burden of fees and fines that they will never be able to pay; and, in the aftermath of the worst pandemic in more than a century, increasing violence, particularly homicides and gun violence. This last change has led to fear and demands for action from communities under threat, but it exists alongside of other changes that point to the need for progressive changes rather than reversion to, or greater investment in, get-tough policies.

How did we get here? What have we learned from more than 50 years of efforts at reform? How can we do better? In this essay, I offer some reflections based on my nearly 40 years of evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. 1

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. Perceptions of those responsible for crime also drive responses. And perceptions of those responses result in demands for change. To establish context for the observations that follow, this section describes trends in crime, the population of justice-involved individuals, and the expenditures supporting the sprawling criminal justice enterprise in the United States since the mid-to-late twentieth century.

But first, my perspective: Over the last nearly 40 years, I have observed justice system reform efforts since working, while a first-year graduate student in 1983, on a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant that funded a randomized control trial of what would now be termed a reentry program (Lattimore et al., 1990 ). After graduate school, I spent 10 years at NIJ, where I was exposed to policy making and the relevance of research for both policy and practice. I taught for several years at a university. And, for most of my career, I have been in the trenches at a not-for-profit social science research firm. Throughout my career, I have conducted research and evaluation on a broad array of topics and have spent most of my time contemplating the challenges of reform. I’ve evaluated single programs, large federal initiatives, and efforts by philanthropies to effect reform. I’ve used administrative data to model criminal recidivism to address—to the degree statistical methods allow—various dimensions of recidivism (type, frequency, and seriousness). I’ve developed recidivism models for the practical purpose of assessing risk for those on community supervision and to explore the effects of covariates and interventions on recidivism and other outcomes. I’ve participated in research attempting to understand the shortcomings of and potential biases in justice data and the models that must necessarily use those data. While most of my work has focused on community corrections (e.g., probation and post-release interventions and behavior) and reentry, I have studied jail diversion programs, jail and pretrial reform, and efforts focused on criminal record expungement. These experiences have illuminated for me that punitiveness is built into the American criminal justice system—a punitiveness that traps many people from the time they are first arrested until they die.

Crime and Correctional Population Trends

The 1960s witnessed a dramatic rise in crime in the United States, and led to the so-called “War on Crime,” the “War on Drugs,” and a variety of policy responses, culminating with the passage of the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994 (“The 1994 Crime Act”; Pub. L. 103–322). Figure  1 shows the violent crime rate in the United States from 1960 to 1994. 2 In 1960, the violent crime rate in the United States was 161 per 100,000 people; by 1994 the rate had increased more than four-fold to nearly 714 per 100,000. 3 As can be seen, the linear trend was highly explanatory (R-square = 0.96)—however, there were two obvious downturns in the trend line—between 1980 and 1985 and, perhaps, between 1991 and 1994.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig1_HTML.jpg

US Violent Crime Rate, 1960–1994

Homicides followed a similar pattern. Figure  2 shows the number of homicides each year between 1960 and 1994. In 12 years (1960 to 1972), the number of homicides doubled from 9,100 to 18,670. By 1994, the number had grown to 23,330—but it is worth noting that there were multiple downturns over this period, including a drop of more than 4,000 between 1980 and 1984. These figures show the backdrop to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that led reformers to call for more punitive sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences, “three-strikes laws” that mandated long sentences for repeat offenders, and truth-in-sentencing statutes that required individuals to serve most of their sentences before being eligible for release. This was also the period when the 1966 Bail Reform Act, which sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, was supplanted in 1984 by the Pretrial Reform Act, which once again led to increased reliance on pretrial detention.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig2_HTML.jpg

United States Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–1994

The 1994 Crime Act, enacted during the Clinton Administration, continued the tough-on-crime era by enabling more incarceration and longer periods of incarceration that resulted in large increases in correctional populations. In particular, the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program, funded by the Act, provided $3 billion to states to expand their jail and prisons capacities between FY1996 and FY2001 and to encourage states to eliminate indeterminate sentencing in favor of laws that required individuals to serve at least 85% of their imposed sentences.

Figure  3 shows the dramatic rise in the number of state and federal prisoners prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act—the number of prisoners more than tripled between 1980 and 1994. 4 The increase in numbers of prisoners was not due to shifts from jail to prison or from probation to prison, given that all correctional populations increased dramatically over this 14-year period—jail populations increased 164% (183,988 to 486,474), probation increased 166% (1,118,097 to 2,981,022), and parole increased 213% (220,438 to 690,371).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig3_HTML.jpg

State and Federal Prisoners in the US, 1960–1994

So, what happened after passage of the 1994 Crime Act? Fig.  4 shows the violent crime rate from 1960 through 2020. As can be seen, the decrease in the violent crime rate that began prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act continued. And, notably, it preceded the influx of federal funding to put more police on the streets, build more jails and prisons, and place more individuals into the custody of local, state, and federal correctional agencies. Even with a small increase between 2019 and 2020, the violent crime rate in 2020 was 398.5 per 100,000 individuals, well below its 1991 peak of 758.2. 5

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig4_HTML.jpg

United States Violent Crime Rate (violent crimes per 100,000 population), 1960–2020

Figure  5 shows the US homicide rate from 1960 to 2020. Consistent with the overall violent crime rate, the homicide rate in 2020 remained well below the peak of 10.2 that occurred in 1981. (Rates also may have risen in 2021—as evidenced by reports of large increases in major U.S. cities—but an official report of the 2021 number and rate for the U.S. was not available as of the time of this writing.) The rise in this rate from 2019 to 2020 was more than 27%— worthy of attention and concern. It represents the largest year-over-year increase between 1960 and 2020. However, there have been other years where the rate increased about 10% (1966, 1967, 1968, 2015, and 2016), only then to drop back in subsequent years. Further, it is difficult to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused massive disruptions, is a factor in the increase in homicides or to know whether the homicide rate will abate as the pandemic ebbs. Finally, it bears emphasizing that during this 60-year period there have been years when the homicide rate fell by nearly 10% (e.g., 1996, 1999). From a policy perspective, it seems prudent to be responsive to increases in crime but also not to over-react to one or two years of data—particularly during times of considerable upheaval.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig5_HTML.jpg

United States Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–2020

The growth in correctional populations, including prisoners, that began in the 1970s continued well into the twenty-first century—in other words, long after the crime rate began to abate in 1992. Figure  6 shows the prison population and total correctional population (state and federal prison plus jail, probation, and parole populations summed) between 1980 and 2020. Both trends peaked in 2009 at 1,615,500 prisoners and 7,405,209 incarcerated or on supervision. Year-over-year decreases, however, have been modest (Fig.  7 ), averaging about 1% (ignoring the steep decline between 2019 and 2020). The impact of factors associated with COVID-19, including policy and practice responses, resulted in a 15% decrease in the numbers of state and federal prisoners and a 14% decrease in the total number of adults under correctional control. Based on ongoing projects in pretrial and probation, as well as anecdotal evidence related to court closures and subsequent backlogs, it is reasonable to assume that some, if not most, of the decline in populations in 2020 was due to releases that exceeded new admissions as individuals completed their sentences and delays in court processing reduced new admissions. To the extent that these factors played a role, it is likely that in the immediate near term, we will see numbers rebound to values closer to what prevailed in 2019.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig6_HTML.jpg

United States Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 1980–2020

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig7_HTML.jpg

Year-over-Year Change in Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 2981–2020

Responding with Toughness (and Dollars)

The increase in crime beginning in the 1960s led to a political demand for a punitive response emphasized by Richard Nixon’s “War on Crime” and “War on Drugs.” In 1970, Congress passed four anticrime bills that revised Federal drug laws and penalties, addressed evidence gathering against organized crime, authorized preventive detention and “no-knock” warrants, and provided $3.5 billion to state and local law enforcement. 6 Subsequent administrations continued these efforts, punctuated by the Crime Act of 1994. As described by the U.S. Department of Justice:

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 … is the largest crime bill in the history of the country and will provide for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs …. The Crime Bill provides $2.6 billion in additional funding for the FBI, DEA, INS, United States Attorneys, and other Justice Department components, as well as the Federal courts and the Treasury Department. 7

Much of the funding went to state and local agencies to encourage the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences, “three strikes” laws, and to hire 100,000 police officers and build prisons and jails. This funding was intended to steer the highly decentralized United States criminal justice “system” towards a more punitive approach to crime; this system encompasses all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and all branches of government (executive, judicial, legislative).

The nation’s crime rate peaked in 1992. So, this “largest crime bill in the history of the country” began a dramatic increase in funding for justice expenditures just as crime had already begun to decline. Figure  8 shows that expenditures increased roughly 50% in real dollars between 1997 and 2017—from $188 billion to more than $300 billion dollars (Buehler,  2021 ). 8 More than half of that increase-—$65.4 billion additional—went to police protection. Roughly $50 billion additional went to the judiciary and corrections.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig8_HTML.jpg

United States Justice Expenditures, 1997–2017

So, what did these increases buy? Dramatically declining crime rates (Figs. ​ (Figs.4 4 and ​ and5) 5 ) suggest that numbers of crimes also declined. That can be seen in Fig.  9 , which shows offenses known and an estimate of offenses cleared for selected years between 1980 and 2019. 9 In 1991, there were 11,651,612 known property offenses and 1,682,487 known violent offenses—these numbers declined 47% and 34% by 2019.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig9_HTML.jpg

Offenses Known and Cleared in the US, Selected Years 1980–2019

Declining numbers of crimes and dramatic increases in expenditures on policing and justice system operation would suggest that there should have been improvements in offense clearance rates during this time. This did not happen. Crime clearance rates stayed roughly constant, which means that the numbers of offenses cleared declined by percentages like declines in the number of offenses over this period—49% for property offenses and 33% for violent offenses. More than 750,000 violent offenses and more than 2 million property offenses were cleared in 1991 compared to about 500,000 violent offenses and 1 million property offenses in 2019.

Presently, as violent crime ticks up, we are hearing renewed calls for “tough-on-crime” measures. Some opinion writers have compared 2022 to Nixon’s era. Kevin Boyle noted:

[Nixon] already had his core message set in the early days of his 1968 campaign. In a February speech in New Hampshire, he said: “When a nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is torn apart by lawlessness, when a nation which has been the symbol of equality of opportunity is torn apart by racial strife … then I say it’s time for new leadership in the United States of America.” There it is: the fusion of crime, race and fear that Nixon believed would carry him to the presidency. 10

Responding to the recent increase in violent crime, President Joseph Biden proposed the Safer America Plan to provide $37 billion “to support law enforcement and crime prevention.” 11 The Plan includes more than $12 billion in funds for 100,000 additional police officers through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. This proposal echoes the “100,000 cops on the street” that was a centerpiece of the 1994 Crime Act, which created the COPS office and program. Unlike the 1994 Crime Act, however, the Safer America Plan does not include funding for prisons and jails. Both the 1994 Crime Act and the Safer America Plan address gun violence, strengthen penalties for drug offenses, and provide support for programs and interventions to make communities safer and to address criminal recidivism.

The previous 50 or 60 years witnessed reforms efforts other than these that largely focused on bolstering the justice system infrastructure. The 1966 Bail Reform Act sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, but subsequently was supplanted by the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act that once again promoted pretrial detention. 12 This century—as jail populations exceeded 700,000, with most held prior to conviction—there has been considerable attention to eliminate money bond, which disproportionately leads to pretrial detention for poor and marginalized individuals (and release for the “well-heeled”). Private philanthropy has led much of this focus on pretrial and bail reform. For example, the MacArthur Foundation has spent several hundred million dollars on their Safety and Justice Challenge since 2015 with a goal of reducing jail populations and eliminating racial and ethnic disparity. 13 The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) took a different approach and has invested substantial sums in the development and validation of a pretrial assessment instrument (the Public Safety Assessment or PSA) that provides assessments of the likelihood an individual will fail to appear to court or be arrested for a new crime or new violent crime if released while awaiting trial. 14 Although assessment algorithms have been criticized for lack of transparency and for perpetuating racial bias, the PSA scoring algorithm is publicly available and has not shown evidence of racial bias in a series of local validations conducted by RTI for LJAF. New York and New Jersey are among the states that have attempted to reduce reliance on money bond. However, as violent crime has increased, these efforts have faced considerable pushback.

The bail bonds industry has been a vocal opponent of efforts to reduce or eliminate the use of money bond. This industry is not the only one that profits from the imposition of punishment. As Page and Soss ( 2021 ) recently reported, “Over the past 35 years, public and private actors have turned US criminal justice institutions into a vast network of revenue-generating operations. Today, practices such as fines, fees, forfeitures, prison charges, and bail premiums transfer billions of dollars from oppressed communities to governments and corporations.” Fines, fees, and forfeitures generally profit the governments and agencies that impose them—although supervision fees to private probation services benefit businesses, as do fees for electronic monitoring, and drug testing. The Prison Policy Institute reports that there are more than 4,000 companies that profit from mass incarceration. 15 Court and supervision fees can quickly add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, burdening people with crushing debt and the threat of jail if they don’t pay. 16 There can be other consequences as well. After Florida passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to individuals once they had completed their carceral or community sentence, the State specified that the right to vote would not be restored until an individual had paid all outstanding fees and fines. In addition, mistakenly voting with outstanding fees and fines is a felony. 17

Other work to reform pretrial justice includes early provision of defense counsel, and implementation of diversion programs for individuals charged with low-level offenses or who have behavioral health issues. The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants in the United States a right to counsel. In some jurisdictions (and the Federal court system), this is the responsibility of an office of public defense. In others, private defense counsel is appointed by the Court. Regardless, public defense is widely understood to be poorly funded. As noted by Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy currently working to improve access to defense, “The resulting system is fragmented and underfunded; lacks quality control and oversight; and fails to safeguard the rights of the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are represented by public defenders or indigent counsel.” 18

Mental health problems are prevalent among individuals incarcerated in local jails and prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report by Bronson and Berzofsky ( 2017 ), reported that “prisoners and jail inmates were three to five times as likely to have met the threshold for SPD [serious psychological distress] as adults in the general U.S. population.” Bronson and Berzofsky further reported that 44% of individuals in jail reported being told they had a mental disorder. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s GAINS Center has been at the forefront of efforts to implement jail diversion programs for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders and has also played a significant role in the establishment of treatment courts. 19 Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) for law enforcement to improve interaction outcomes between law enforcement and individuals in crisis. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) notes that “The lack of mental health crisis services across the U.S. has resulted in law enforcement officers serving as first responders to most crises. A Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is an innovative, community-based approach to improve the outcomes of these encounters.” 20 Non-law enforcement responses—such as the CAHOOTS program that was developed in Eugene, Oregon—to certain calls for service are also being tested in multiple communities. 21 Despite multiple efforts to identify appropriate alternatives to jail, individuals with mental health disorders continue to disproportionately fill the nation’s jails.

A Recapitulation

The 1970 crime bills that passed early in Nixon’s presidency set the stage for the infusion of federal dollars that has provided billions of dollars in funding for police and prisons. Between 1970 and 1994, the number of adults in state and federal prisons in the United States increased from less than 200,000 to nearly 1 million. In 2019, that number stood at more than 1.4 million down from its peak in 2009. Another 734,500 individuals were in jail and more than 4.3 million were in the community on probation or parole. Although representing a dramatic decline since these populations peaked about 2009, this still means that more than 6 million adults were under the supervision of federal, state, and local corrections agencies in 2019.

Thus, it is important to recognize that we are at a very different place from the Nixon era. Today, the numbers (and rates) of individuals who are “justice-involved” remain at near record highs. As the progressive efforts of the twenty-first century encounter headwinds, it is worth waving a caution flag as the “remedies” of the twentieth century—more police, “stop and frisk,” increased pretrial detention—are once again being proposed to address violent crime.

Part II: Finding “What Works”

The 1994 Crime Act and subsequent reauthorizations also included funding for a variety of programs, including drug courts, prison drug treatment programs, and other programs focused on facilitating reentry and reducing criminal recidivism. Subsequent legislation authorized other Federal investments that resurrected rehabilitation as a goal of correctional policy. The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) provided $100 million (and some limited supplements) to agencies to develop programs that began in prison and continued into the community and were intended to improve outcomes across a range of domains—community reintegration, employment, family, health (including mental health), housing, substance abuse, supervision compliance and, of course, recidivism (see Lattimore et al., 2005b ; Winterfield et al., 2006 ; Lattimore & Visher, 2013 , 2021 ; Visher et al., 2017 ). Congress did not reauthorize SVORI but instead authorized the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) managed by the U.S. Department of Labor; PRI (now the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders or RExO program) provides funding for employment-focused programs for non-violent offenders. In 2006, a third reentry-focused initiative was funded—the Marriage and Incarceration Initiative was managed by the Department of Health and Human Services and focused on strengthening marriage and families for male correctional populations. In 2008, Congress passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) to provide grants for prison and jail reentry programs. The SCA grant program administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) was reauthorized in 2018; it continues to provide reentry grants to state and local agencies (see Lindquist et al., 2021 ). These initiatives all primarily focused on supporting efforts at the state and local level. The First Step Act of 2018 focused on reforms for the federal prison system. These efforts signified a substantial increase in efforts aimed at determining “what works” to reduce criminal behavior—and provided an opportunity to rebut the “nothing works” in correctional programming that followed the publication of research by Lipton ( 1975 ).

Elsewhere, I have summarized some of the research into Federal initiatives that I have conducted over the years (Lattimore, 2020 ). These studies comprise work in dozens of states, involving thousands of individuals and have included studies of drug treatment, jail diversion, jail and prison reentry, and probation. Some involved evaluation of a substantial Federal investment, such as the multi-site evaluation of SVORI.

These evaluations, as has been largely true of those conducted by others, have produced mixed results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the effectiveness of adult correctional programming have yielded findings of modest or negligible effects (e.g., Aos et al., 2006 ; Bitney et al., 2017 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ; MacKenzie, 2006 ; Sherman, et al., 1997 ). In an updated inventory of research- and evidence-based adult programming, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Wanner, 2018 ) identified a variety of programs for which evidence suggests significant if modest effect sizes. As has been identified by others (e.g., MacKenzie, 2006 ), the most effective programs focused on individual change, including, for example, cognitive behavior therapy (estimated effect size of -0.11). Treatment-oriented intensive supervision programs were found to reduce recidivism by about 15%, while surveillance-oriented intensive supervision was found to have no demonstrated effects. Several types of work and educational programs (correctional industries, basic adult education, prison-based vocational education, and job training and assistance in the community) were found to reduce recidivism between 5 and 22%. Most non-zero treatment effect sizes were between about 5% and 15%. Lipsey and Cullen ( 2007 ) also suggest 14% to 22% reductions in recidivism for adult rehabilitation treatment programs.

Two thoughts about these small effects warrant consideration. The first, of course, is why reducing criminal behavior appears to be so difficult. Second, however, is that, in recognizing the first, perhaps we should adapt more realistic expectations about what can be achieved and acknowledge that even small effects can have a meaningful impact on public safety.

Challenges: Why Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform So Difficult?

One issue with most federal funding streams is “short timelines.” For example, typical of grant programs of this type, SVORI grantees were given three years of funding. During this time, they had to develop a programmatic strategy, establish interagency working arrangements, identify program and service providers, develop a strategy for identifying potential participants, and implement their programs. Three years is a very short time to develop a program that incorporates needs assessment, provides a multiplicity of services and programs within an institution, and creates a path for continuation of services as individuals are released to various communities across a state.

The “short timelines” problem underlies, and contributes to, a variety of other considerations that can plague efforts to identify “what works.” Based on my experiences, these considerations, which I discuss further below, include the following:

  • People: Justice-involved individuals have multiple needs and there is an emerging question as to whether addressing these needs is the best path to desistance.
  • Programs: Interventions often lack adequate logic models and are poorly implemented.
  • Methods: Evaluations frequently are underpowered and unlikely to scale the alpha 0.05 hurdle typically used to identify statistically significant effects.

First, it is important to recognize that justice-involved individuals face serious and complex challenges that are difficult to remedy. Many scholars have highlighted the myriad of challenges faced by individuals returning to the community from prison (e.g., see Petersilia, 2003 ; Travis, 2005 ; Travis & Visher, 2005 ). In interviews conducted with 1,697 men and 357 women who participated in the SVORI multisite evaluation, 95% of women and 94% of men said at the time of prison release that they needed more education. Nearly as many—86% of women and 82% of men—said they needed job training. More than two-thirds indicated that they needed help with their criminal thinking and three-quarters said they needed life skills training. They were somewhat less likely to report needing substance use disorder or mental health treatment but still—at the time of prison release—66% of the women and 37% of the men reported needing substance use treatment and 55% of the women and 22% of the men reported needing mental health treatment.

Half of these individuals had participated in SVORI programs while incarcerated and the proportions reported reflect their self-assessment of need after in-prison receipt of programming. Figure  10 shows the percentages of SVORI and non-SVORI groups who reported receiving a select set of services and programs during their incarceration. Several things standout: (1) The receipt of programs and services during incarceration was much less than the indicated need at the time of release; and (2) SVORI program participants were more likely to report receiving services than the comparison group members who were not in SVORI programs.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12103_2022_9713_Fig10_HTML.jpg

Self-reported service receipt during incarceration for SVORI program evaluation participants. Note: * =  p  <  = 0.05. Educ = educational programming, EmplSrv = employment-related services, CrimAtt = programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, LifeSk = life skills, AODTx = substance abuse treatment, and MHTx = mental health treatment. Sample sizes were SVORI men (863), non-SVORI men (834), SVORI women (153) and non-SVORI women (204).

Source: Lattimore & Visher (2009)

More recently, Lindquist et al. ( 2021 ) completed a seven-site evaluation of Second Chance Act reentry programs that were a mix of jail- and prison-based programs. About half of the study participants reported having received substance use disorder treatment and about one-third reported having received mental health treatment. At release, they reported limited-service receipt. For example, there was no significant difference between receipt of educational programming (23% of SCA program participants compared with 17% for comparison group members). SCA program participants were more likely to report receiving any employment services (60% versus 40%), which included job assistance, employment preparation, trade or job training programs, vocational or technical certifications, and transitional job placement or subsidized employment. SCA program participants were also more likely to report receiving cognitive behavioral services (58% versus 41%). But, again, not all program participants received services despite needing them and some comparison subjects received services.

Limited access to treatment by program participants and some access to treatment by comparison subjects were also observed in a multi-site study of pre- and post-booking jail diversion programs for individuals with co-occurring substance use disorder and serious mental illness (Broner et al., 2004 ; Lattimore et al., 2003 ). Across eight study sites, 971 diverted subjects and 995 non-diverted subjects were included in this evaluation; the research found only modest differences in the receipt of services and treatment at 3- and 12-months follow-up. For example, at the 3-month interview, 26% of both groups reported receiving substance abuse counseling, and at the 12-month interview, 0.7% of those diverted versus no non-diverted participant received two or more substance abuse counseling sessions. At 3 months, 38% of the diverted subjects and 30% of the non-diverted reported mental health counseling versus 41% and 38% at 12 months, respectively.

The service needs expressed by these individuals reflect their lack of education, job experience, vocational skills, and life skills, as well as the substance abuse and mental health issues identified among justice-involved individuals. The intervention response to these needs is reflected in the variety of services prescribed in the typical “reentry program bucket.” These involve the services and programs shown in Fig.  10 , as well as case management and reentry planning to coordinate services with respect to needs.

The identification of needs followed by efforts to meet those needs underlies the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) approach to addressing justice-involved populations (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 1994 , 2006 ; Latessa, 2020 ). The RNR approach to addressing criminal behavior is premised on the assumption that if you address identified needs that are correlated with criminal behavior, that behavior will be reduced. In other words, recidivism can be addressed by providing individuals the education and job skills and treatment they need to find gainful employment, reduce substance use, and mitigate symptoms of mental illness. Latessa ( 2020 ) recently discussed the RNR approach, reiterating the importance of assessing individual criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs to improve reentry programs. He also reiterated the importance of focusing resources on those identified as high (or higher) risk by actuarial risk assessment instruments—pointing to important work he conducted with colleagues that found that interventions reduced recidivism among high-risk individuals and increased it among low-risk individuals (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002 ; Latessa et al., 2010 ). This approach to reentry programming is reflected in the requirements of most federal grants—like the SVORI and SCA—that require programs to incorporate reentry planning that includes needs assessment and services that address criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs.

As noted, most justice-involved individuals have limited education and few job skills, and many have behavioral health issues, anger management issues, and limited life skills. But if addressing these deficits is the key to successfully rehabilitating large numbers of individuals caught in the carceral and community justice system, the meager results of recent research suggests two possibilities. First, this is the right approach, but poor or incomplete implementation has so far impeded findings of substantial effects (a common conclusion since the Martinson report). Second, alternatively, this approach is wrong (or insufficient), and new thinking about the “what and how” of rehabilitative programming is needed. I address the second idea next and turn to the first idea shortly.

MacKenzie ( 2006 ) and others (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 2006 ; Andrews et al., 1990 ; Aos et al., 2006 ; Lipsey, 1995 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ) have stressed that programs focused on individual change have been found to be effective more often than those providing practical services. The SVORI evaluation also found support for this conclusion. Services we classified as “practical” (e.g., case manager, employment services, life skills, needs assessment, reentry planning, and reentry program) were associated with either no or a deleterious impact on arrest chances—although few were statistically different from a null effect. Individual-change services (e.g., anger management, programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, education, help with personal relationships, and substance abuse treatment) were associated with positive impacts on arrest. The original SVORI evaluation had a follow-up period of about 2 years and findings suggested that the overall impact of SVORI program participation on rearrest and reincarceration were positive but not statistically significant. In contrast to these findings, a longer follow-up that extended at least 56 months showed participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women. For the men, SVORI program participation was associated with a longer time to reincarceration and fewer reincarcerations, although the latter result was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.18). For the women, the reincarceration results were mixed and not significant.

Support for positive impacts of programs focused on individual change are consistent with theories associated with identity transformation and desistance from criminal activity. Bushway ( 2020 ) has recently discussed two alternative views of desistance, contrasting the implications of desistance either as a process (i.e., the gradual withdrawal from criminal activity) or reflective of an identify shift towards a more prosocial identity. In examining these two ideas, Bushway posits that the second suggests that individuals with a history of a high rate of offending may simply stop (as opposed to reducing the frequency of criminal acts). If individuals do (or can or will) stop, the implication is clear: policies that focus on an individual’s criminal history (e.g., for employment or parole decisions) may fail to recognize that the individual has changed. This change may be evidenced by in-prison good behavior (e.g., completing programs and staying out of trouble) or positive steps following release (e.g., actively seeking meaningful employment or engaging in positive relationships). Tellingly, Bushway ( 2020 ) notes: “Individuals involved in crime get information about how they are perceived by others through their involvement in the criminal justice system. Formal labels of ‘criminal’ are assigned and maintained by the criminal justice system. As a result, identity models are much more consistent theoretically with an empirical approach that revolves around measures of criminal justice involvement rather than criminal offending per se.” He goes on to discuss the relationship of identity-based models of stark breaks and criminal career models. In short, reflecting insights that labeling theorists have long emphasized, the labels the criminal justice system and society place on individuals may impede the desistance process that is the supposed goal of the system.

The second consideration are concerns about program design and implementation—What is the underlying logic model or theory of change? Is there adequate time to develop the program and train staff to implement it appropriately? Is the resulting program implemented with fidelity? The two or three years usually provided to implement complex programs suggest that these goals are unlikely to be met. The “notorious” findings of Martinson (1975) that “nothing works” was more appropriately interpreted as “nothing was implemented.” Unfortunately, nearly 50 years later, we largely observe something similar—not “nothing” but “something” that is far short of what was intended.

As discussed in detail by Taxman (2020), the usual approach to program development and testing skips over important formative steps, doesn’t allow time for pilot testing, and provides little opportunity for staff training or for achievement and maintenance of program fidelity (if there is even a program logic model). From an evaluator’s perspective, this short timeline imposes multiple challenges. An evaluator must identify study participants (and control or comparison subjects), follow them largely while they are in the program, and hope to have at least one year of post-program follow-up—generally without being able to accommodate the impact of likely weak implementation on evaluation power to detect effects.

Thus, it may not be surprising that effects are generally small. However, these small effects may not be negligible from a public safety perspective. In a study of the effects of non-residential drug treatment for a cohort of probationers, Lattimore et al. ( 2005a ) found that treatment reduced the number of probationers with a felony arrest by 23% during the first year and 11% over the first two years. The total number of arrests was also reduced by 17% over 12 months and 14% over 24 months. “Back of the envelope” calculations suggested that if treatment cost $1,000 per individual, it would have been cost effective to provide treatment to all members of the cohort as long as the (average) cost of arrest (and all related criminal justice processing and corrections) exceeds about $6,463.

Another example is to consider that the impact of a treatment effect in the 10% range applied across all prison releases would imply the aversion of many crimes. For example, assuming 750,000 prison releases each year over a five-year period and a 66% rearrest rate within 3 years (and no additional arrests after 3 years), then 3.75 million prisoners will be released over the five years; of these individuals, 2.475 million will be arrested at least once during the three years following release. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 247,500 fewer first-time rearrests. To the extent that many offenders are arrested multiple times, this figure represents a lower bound on the number of averted arrests. A similar analysis could be conducted assuming 2,000,000 probation admissions each year and a 39% rearrest rate within 3 years. In this case, there would be 10,000,000 probation admissions that would generate 3.9 million first-time arrests over the three years after admission to probation. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 390,000 fewer arrests. In total, therefore, reducing recidivism—as measured by rearrest by 10% for these hypothetical correctional populations—would translate into 637,500 averted arrests. Extrapolating further and assuming that roughly 10% of the arrests were for violent crime and 90% for property crime, and applying the inverse of the crime clearance rates for these two types of crime to generate a “crimes averted” count, we find that a 10% reduction in recidivism for these two populations would translate into 140,110 violent and 3,519,939 property crimes averted. 22 Thus, “modest” improvements in recidivism may provide substantial public benefits—in crimes averted, and lower demands on law enforcement, prosecution, and correctional resources. 23

The third consideration is the adequacy of the evaluation methods we routinely apply to this complex problem of inadequate interventions that are partially and sometimes poorly implemented. At minimum, we need to explicitly recognize the impacts of the following:

  • Programs partially implemented and partially treated control conditions.
  • Recidivism outcomes conditioned on an intermediate outcome.
  • Follow-up periods too short to accommodate short-term failure followed by long-term success.
  • Focusing on a binary indicator of recidivism ignores frequency and seriousness of offending.

The impact of partial treatment of both treatment and control groups on effect sizes and the consequential impact on statistical power is seldom discussed—either in initial estimates of needed sample sizes or in subsequent discussions of findings. As shown earlier and is true for most justice evaluations, the control or comparison condition is almost never “nothing.” Instead, it is generally “business as usual” (BAU) that means whatever the current standard of treatment entails. Thus, the treatment group may receive some services that aren’t available to the control group, but in many cases both groups have access to specific services and programs although the treatment group may get priority.

As we saw in Fig.  10 , treatment was reported by some individuals in both the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the implications of partial treatment using data from the SVORI evaluation. 24 The percent treated for the SVORI and non-SVORI men are shown in columns three and four. Column 2 presents the effect sizes for four interventions as identified by Wanner ( 2018 ). If we assume that the recidivism rate without treatment is 20%, 25 the observed recidivism rate for the SVORI and non-SVORI men as a result of receiving each treatment is shown in columns four and five. Column six shows that the observed differences in recidivism between the two groups in this “thought experiment” are less than two percent—an effect size that would never be detected with typical correctional program evaluations. 26

Hypothetical treatment effects with incomplete treatment of the treatment group and partial treatment of the comparison group, assuming untreated recidivism rate is 20 percent

* Estimates from Wanner ( 2018 ).

Similar findings emerge when considering the effects on recidivism of interventions such as job training programs that are intended to improve outcomes intermediate to recidivism. Consider the hypothetical impact of a prison job training program on post-release employment and recidivism. The underlying theory of change is that training will increase post-release employment and having a job will reduce recidivism. 27 Suppose the job training program boosts post-release employment by 30% and that, without the program, 50% of released individuals will find a job. A 30% improvement means that 65% of program participants will find employment. Randomly assigning 100 of 200 individuals to receive the program would result in 50 of those in the control group and 65 of those in the treatment group to find employment. (This outcome assumes everyone in the treatment group receives treatment.) Table ​ Table2 2 shows the treatment effect on recidivism under various assumptions about the impact of employment on recidivism. The table assumes a 50% recidivism rate for the unemployed so, e.g., if the effect of a job is to reduce recidivism by 10% employed individuals will have a recidivism rate of 45%. If there is no effect—i.e., recidivism is independent of being employed—we observe 50% failure for both groups and there is no effect on recidivism rates even if the program is successful at increasing employment by 30%. On the other hand, if being employed eliminates recidivism, no one who is employed will be recidivists and 50% of those unemployed will be recidivists—or 25 of the control group and 17.5 of the treated group. The last column in Table ​ Table2 2 shows the conditional effect of job training on recidivism under the various effects of employment on recidivism shown in column 1. The effects shown in the last column are the same regardless of the assumption about the recidivism rate of the unemployed. So, employment must have a very substantial effect on the recidivism rate to result in a large effect on the observed recidivism rate when, as is reasonable to assume, some members of the control group who didn’t have the training will find employment. As before, this finding underscores the need to carefully consider the mechanism affecting recidivism and potential threats to effect sizes and statistical power.

Hypothetical effects of job training on employment and recidivism assuming job training increases employment by 30% and control (untreated) employment is 50%

A third concern is that follow-up periods which typically are 2 years or less may be too short to observe positive impacts of interventions (Lattimore & Visher, 2020). Although this may seem counterintuitive, it is what was observed for the SVORI multisite evaluation. The initial SVORI evaluation focused on the impact of participation with at least 21 months of follow-up following release from prison and showed positive but insignificant differences in rearrests for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. A subsequent NIJ award provided funding for a long-term (at least 56 months) examination of recidivism for 11 of the 12 adult programs (Visher et al., 2017 ; also see Lattimore et al., 2012 ). In contrast to the findings in the original study, participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women during the extended follow-up period of at least 56 months. Although untestable post hoc, one plausible hypothesis is that the early period following release is chaotic for many individuals leaving prison and failure is likely. Only after the initial “settling out period” are individuals in a position to take advantage of what was learned during program participation. In any event, these findings suggest the need to conduct more, longer-term evaluations of reentry programs.

A final consideration is the indicator of recidivism used to judge the success of a program. Recidivism, which is a return to criminal behavior, is almost never observed. Instead, researchers and practitioners rely on proxies that are measures of justice system indicators that a crime has occurred—arrest, conviction, and incarceration for new offenses—and, for those on supervision, violation of conditions and revocation of supervision. A recent National Academy of Sciences’ publication ( 2022 ) highlights some of the limitations of recidivism as a measure of post-release outcomes, arguing that indicators of success and measures that allow for the observation of desisting behavior (defined by the panel as a process—not the sharp break advanced by Bushway) should be used instead. These are valid points but certainly in the short run the funders of interventions and those responsible for public safety are unlikely to be willing to ignore new criminal activity as an outcome.

It is worth highlighting, however, some of the limitations of the binary indicator of any new event that is the usual measure adopted by many researchers (e.g., “any new arrest within x years”) and practitioners (e.g., “return to our Department within 3 years”). These simple measures ignore important dimensions of recidivism. These include type of offense (e.g., violent, property, drug), seriousness of offense (e.g., homicide, felony assault, misdemeanor assault), and frequency of offending (equivalent to time to the recidivism event). As a result, a typical recidivism outcome treats as identical minor acts committed, e.g., 20 months following release, and serious crimes committed immediately. Note too that this binary indicator fails in terms of being able to recognize desisting behavior, that is, where time between events increases or the seriousness of the offense decreases. Survival methods and count or event models address the frequency consideration. Competing hazard models allow one to examine differences between a few categories of offending (e.g., violent, property, drug, other). The only approach that appears to have tackled the seriousness dimension is the work by Sherman and colleagues (Sherman et al., 2016 ; also, see www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/thecambridgecrimeharminde ) who have developed a Crime Harm Index that is based on potential sentences for non-victimless crimes. To date, statistical methods that can accommodate the three dimensions simultaneously do not, to my knowledge, exist. At a minimum, however, researchers should use the methods that are available to fully explore their recidivism outcomes. Logistic regression models are easy to estimate and the results are easily interpretable. But an intervention may be useful if it increases the time to a new offense or reduces the seriousness of new criminal behavior.

The last forty years or so have seen strides at identifying interventions that are promising, but much work remains to be done to find programs that result in substantial, broad-based improvements. Challenges in program development and implementation, partial treatment of treatment groups and control groups, and limited focus on recidivism as a binary indicator of failure were highlighted as some of the issues confronting practitioners and evaluators. 28 There is reason for optimism—if expectations are realistic from both a programmatic and methodological perspective: Identify promising programs, apply best practices of implementation science, calculate reasonable statistical expectations, and build on what has been tried.

Conclusions

In the past several decades, dramatic increases in crime resulted in large-scale legislative changes and expenditures. Correctional populations dramatically increased even as crime rates plunged. In addition, despite large increases in funding to law enforcement and other justice agencies, the number of offenses cleared declined. During this time, there were multiple federal initiatives focused on reducing criminal recidivism. Some, such as the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs, focused singularly on reducing drug use, while others focused broadly on addressing the multi-faceted needs of justice-involved individuals.

These changes occurred in a context of a highly decentralized approach to criminal justice, one that creates a myriad of costs and incentives. For example, if a federally funded reentry program reduces crime, the immediate agency beneficiaries are local law enforcement (due to fewer crimes to solve), prosecution (due to fewer crimes to prosecute), and the courts (due to fewer cases to try). That can reduce admissions to prison. But for cost-savings to occur, agencies have to respond to reductions in crime by reducing costs. That tends to run counter to the natural inclination of administrators, especially if it means reducing staffing. And it runs counter to what happened as crime declined over the last roughly 30 years.

We increasingly have research evidence that some programs can reduce recidivism, but many challenges, such as underpowered research designs, sometimes undermines this evidence. Even so, it is important to note that even modest reductions in recidivism imply opportunities to avert substantial numbers of crimes and subsequent criminal justice system processing and costs.

This essay suggests that it is time to embrace the modest improvements in recidivism that have been forthcoming from programs that have been subjected to the most rigorous evaluations. And it suggests that it is time to downsize our expectations for a “silver bullet” and, instead, prepare for a long-term and sustained investment in programming that will improve, refine and augment programs and approaches that “work.” By using “what works” today as the basis for the successful adaptation of multi-faceted programs that address the multiplicity of offender needs, criminal justice policy and practice will develop the tools needed to help a heterogeneous population of prisoners successfully reenter their communities.

Finally, as policymakers grapple with a recent increase in violent crime, it is important to recognize that the “tough-on-crime” responses of the twentieth century led to a 252% increase in the number of citizens under legal system control—including a 312% increase in prison populations—between 1980 and 2000. Correctional populations peaked in 2008 but in 2019 remain 255% above 1980 levels with more than 6.5 million individuals in prisons, jails, or on probation or parole. 29 As the current administration proposes the Safer America Plan, it is important that proper attention be addressed to assure that the result of these expenditures is not to reinvigorate the mass incarceration and mass supervision that followed the adaptation of the as the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994. And it is important that we attend to widespread support for high-quality implementation of programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

is a Principal Scientist with RTI International’s Justice Practice Area. She has more than 35 years of experience evaluating interventions, investigating the causes and correlates of criminal behavior, and developing approaches to improve criminal justice operations. She was principal investigator for multi-site, multi-method evaluations including the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative, the Second Chase Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Program Evaluation, and the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment. She is principal investigator for research examining pretrial risk assessment, policy, and practice; state-level reforms for adult probation; implementation and impact of criminal record expungement; development and implementation of dynamic risk assessment algorithms for Georgia probation and parole; and the long-term impact of a three-state RCT of the 5-Key Reentry Program Model. She is a past Chair of the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing, a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, and a recipient of the American Correctional Association Peter P. Lejins Researcher Award, the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing Distinguished Scholar Award, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Joan McCord Award. Dr. Lattimore has published extensively, has served on the editorial boards of multiple journals, and was the inaugural co-editor of the annual series Handbook on Corrections and Sentencing published by Routledge Press.

Data Availability

1 Some of the ideas presented here were initially explored in Lattimore ( 2020 ) and Lattimore et al. ( 2021 ).

2 Data 1960 to 1984 are FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data; downloaded March 5, 2006; data from 1985 to 2020 are from https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend , downloaded July 12, 2022.

3 Violent crime commands the most attention and hence is the focus here, but property crimes are much more prevalent—directly affecting many more individuals. Property crime rates also increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The property crime rate increased from 1,726.3 per 100,000 in 1960 to 4,660.2 in 1994—an 170% increase. The property crime rate peaked in 1980 at 5,353.3 per 100,000—a 210% increase over 1960.

4 Data for 1960 and 1970 prisoners are from Cahalan, M.W. and Parsons, L.A. ( 1986 ). Data from 1980–2014 are from Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (Date of version: 12/08/ 2009 ) and Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. ( 2015 ). Data from 2015–2020 are from Kluckow, DSW, & Zeng, Z. (Date of version: 3/31/ 2022 ).

5 As noted in footnote 3, property crime rates also rose between 1960 and 1980—peaking at 5,353.3 per 100,000. With some minor fluctuations, the property crime rate has declined steadily since the 1980s and was 1958.2 per 100,000 in 2020.

6 The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–513); the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–452); the District of Columbia Court Reorganization and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (PL 91–358); and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970.

7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

8 The trend shown in Fig.  9 continued a trend. Between 1982 and 1997, total justice expenditures increased 125% from $84.1 billion to $189.5 billion (2007 dollars), Kyckelhahn, T. ( 2011 ).

9 Data are from the FBI Crime in the United States publications for 1980, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2010 and 2019 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/ . Numbers of offenses cleared were estimated by multiplying the offenses known by the offense clearance rates reported by the FBI.

10 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/31/opinion/richard-nixon-america-trump.html

11 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/01/fact-sheet-president-bidens-safer-america-plan-2/

12 For some thoughts on recommendations for reforms for pretrial and sentencing see Lattimore, Spohn, & DeMichele ( 2021 ). This volume also has recommendations for reform across the justice system.

13 Safety and Justice Challenge.

14 https://www.arnoldventures.org/

15 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

16 For an example of how a minor traffic offense can result in thousands of dollars in fines and fees for extensive terms of private probation see In Small-Town Georgia, A Broken Taillight Can Lead to Spiraling Debt—In These Times.

17 See for example, https://www.propublica.org/article/florida-felonies-voter-fraud

18 https://www.arnoldventures.org/work/public-defense

19 https://www.samhsa.gov/gains-center

20 https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Crisis-Intervention/Crisis-Intervention-Team-(CIT)-Programs

21 https://www.eugene-or.gov/4508/CAHOOTS

22 In 2005, the Uniform Crime Reports reported 1,197,089 known violent offenses and 8,935,714 known property offenses or a ratio of about 1:9. Clearance rates were 45.5% for violent and 16.3% for property crimes known to police. The estimated total number of arrests for 2005 was 14,094, 186. Thus, the violent and property arrests account for about 72% of all arrests. Of course, these estimates rest on many assumptions—in some cases, these assumptions would imply that we are estimating the lower bound, since each member of our study population is allowed only one arrest while many will have many more than one. On the other hand, to the extent that individuals are arrested who have committed no offenses, the estimates would over represent the impact of a reduction in crime. The goal here was not to generate a precise estimate but to illustrate that a 10% reduction in recidivism translates into substantial reductions in crime.

23 A model-based estimate of the effect of non-residential drug treatment on 134,000 drug-involved individuals admitted to probation in Florida showed treatment reduced arrests by more than 20% (Lattimore et al., 2005a , 2005b ). This analysis was extended to a cost-effectiveness framework in which it was shown that it would be cost effective to spend $1000 treating all drug-involved probations as long as the average cost of an arrest averted (including arrest, and the costs of judicial processing and corrections) is at least $6,463.

where R = recidivism rate for the group, r = recidivism rate in the absence of treatment, T = percentage of group that is treated, and p = the percentage reduction in recidivism due to treatment (the treatment effect). Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate in the absence of treatment.

25 Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate without treatment.

26 Lipsey ( 1998 ) discusses the issue of underpowered evaluations.

27 A similar example was presented in Lattimore, Visher, & Steffey ( 2010 ).

28 Although not addressed here because of page limitations additional important methodological considerations include whether a comparison group exists for some interventions such as incarceration (see Lattimore & Visher 2021 for a brief discussion) and, even more challenging, whether replication is even possible given the heterogeneity of context and populations. For an interesting consideration of the implications of the latter for examining the impact of incarceration see Mears, Cochran & Cullen ( 2015 ).

29 Correctional populations dropped dramatically in 2020 as law enforcement and the criminal justice system adapted to COVID-19.

Publisher's Note

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

  • Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct . Anderson.
  • Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 4. Lexis/Nexis/Matthew Bende; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Andrews DA, Ziner I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT. Does correctional treatment work: A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology. 1990; 28 :369–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Aos S, Miller M, Drake E. Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bitney K, Drake E, Grice J, Hirsch M, Lee S. The effectiveness of reentry programs for incarcerated persons: Findings for the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Document Number 17–05- 1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Broner N, Lattimore PK, Cowell AJ, Schlenger W. Effects of diversion on adults with mental illness co-occurring with substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavior Sciences and the Law. 2004; 22 :519–541. doi: 10.1002/bsl.605. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 250612.
  • Buehler ED. Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 2017 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-256093. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bushway, S. (2020). What if people decide to desist? Implications for policy. (2020). In B. Orrell (Ed.), Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary (pp. 7–38). American Enterprise Institute.
  • Cahalan MW, Parsons LA. Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850–1984 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-10529. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (2009). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version: 12/08/09, available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  • Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version December 2015. Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-249513. US Department of Justice.
  • Kluckow, D.S.W., & Zeng, Z. (2022). Correctional populations in the United States . Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-303184. Date of version: 3/31/2022. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  • Kyckelhahn, T. (2011 ). Justice expenditures and employment, FY 1982–2007 Statistical tables, Appendix Table 1 . Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts Program.
  • Latessa EJ. Triaging of services for individuals returning from prison. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Latessa, E.J., Lovins, L.B., & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study . University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/ccjr/reports.html .
  • Lattimore PK. Considering reentry program evaluation: Thoughts from the SVORI (and other) evaluations. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A. J., Dawes, D., Steffey, D. M., Tueller, S. J., & Visher, C. (2012). Prisoner reentry services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants? Prepared for NIJ.
  • Lattimore PK, Broner N, Sherman R, Frisman L, Shafer M. A comparison of pre-booking and post-booking diversion programs for mentally ill substance using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2003; 19 (1):30–64. doi: 10.1177/1043986202239741. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore PK, Krebs CP, Koetse W, Lindquist C, Cowell AJ. Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2005; 1 :159–189. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-1617-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore, P.K., Spohn, C., & DeMichele, M. (2021) Reimagining Pretrial and Sentencing. In The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform, A better path forward for criminal justice (pp. 16–27) . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
  • Lattimore PK, Visher C. The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: Evidence from a multi-site evaluation. Evaluation Review. 2013; 37 :274–313. doi: 10.1177/0193841X13519105. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2021). Considerations on the multi-site evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
  • Lattimore PK, Visher CA, Brumbaugh S, Lindquist C, Winterfield L. Implementation of prisoner reentry programs: Findings from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative multi-site evaluation. Justice Research and Policy. 2005; 7 (2):87–109. doi: 10.3818/JRP.7.2.2005.87. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore PK, Visher C, Steffey DM. Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the 21st century. Victims and Offenders. 2010; 5 :253–267. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2010.485907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lattimore PK, Witte AD, Baker JR. Experimental assessment of the effect of vocational training on youthful property offenders. Evaluation Review. 1990; 14 :115–133. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9001400201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lindquist, C., Buck Willison, J., & Lattimore, P. K. (2021). Key findings and implications of the cross-site evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
  • Lipsey MW. What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency? In: McGuire J, editor. What works reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice. Wiley; 1995. pp. 63–78. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In: Bickman Leonard, Rog Debra J. (eds.) Handbook of applied social research methods (pp 39–68). Sage.
  • Lipsey MW, Cullen FT. The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2007; 3 :297–320. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lipton, D.S. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: a survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger Publishers.
  • Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facilities and halfway house program s. University of Cincinnati. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237720823 .
  • MacKenzie D. What works in corrections? Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mears DP, Cochran JC, Cullen FT. Incarceration heterogeneity and its implications for assessing the effectiveness of imprisonment on recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2015; 26 (7):691–712. doi: 10.1177/0887403414528950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of recidivism: Measuring success after prison . The National Academies Press. 10.17226/26459.
  • Page, J., & Soss, J. (2021). Predatory dimensions of criminal justice. Science , 374(6565), 291–294 10.1126/science.abj7782. [ PubMed ]
  • Petersilia J. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sherman L, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sherman, L., Neyroud, P.W. and Neyroud, E., 2016. The Cambridge crime harm index: Measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 10 (3 ), 171–183.
  • The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. (2021). A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
  • Travis J. But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Travis, J., & Visher, C., eds. (2005). Prisoner reentry and crime in America . Cambridge University Press.
  • Visher C, Lattimore PK, Barrick K, Tueller SJ. Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly. 2017; 34 (1):136–165. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wanner P. Inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs for adult corrections (Document Number 18–02-1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Winterfield L, Lattimore PK, Steffey DM, Brumbaugh SM, Lindquist CH. The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring the effects on service delivery. Western Criminology Review. 2006; 7 (2):3–19. [ Google Scholar ]

ESSAY SAUCE

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: The criminal justice system

Essay details and download:.

  • Subject area(s): Criminology essays
  • Reading time: 8 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 23 March 2018*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,123 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 9 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,123 words. Download the full version above.

The level of punishment and whether a criminal is put on a rehabilitation programme depends on the seriousness of the crime and the aggravating and mitigating factors. They are crucial on whether deciding if a criminal is punished or rehabilitated or both. Aggravating factors are “factors indicating higher culpability”(sentencing council), which would consider the harm done to the victim, and the lack of remorse or concern for those who witnessed the crime. This was highlighted in the case of Michael Murray who had his sentence lengthened from 15 years to 19 years after raping a mother and kidnapping her son, due to the “threats to the victim and her young son” and “complete absence of mitigation”. In contrast mitigating factors are described as “factors indicating lower culpability” (ibit) and weigh in the defendants favour as the circumstances and factors may reduce the charges or sentencing. An example of this would be an offender feeling genuinely remorseful about their crime or if the perpetrator had a mental illness / disability or even an addiction.

The criminal justice system punishes offenders as it acts as a deterrent to prevent crime from happening Larrabee argued that it helps “instill fear on the offender so that they will not commit a future crime (Larrabee,.2006,p.2). Punishment psychologically should show disapproval for the offender’s wrongdoing. However, punishing criminals can lead to variable outcomes. When offenders are not punished, harshly enough it can lead to re-offending and this is highlighted by 29.6% of offenders (Oct-Dec 2015) reoffending within a year (ministry of justice); these are only the reported numbers, and there may be substantially more, however they succeed in not being caught. It is disturbing to know that “more than 400 freed sex offenders went onto commit rape in the next 3 years” (Furness, 2012). Take for example the notable case of the tragic murder of Ashleigh Hall who was groomed online and murdered by Peter Chapman. Chapman had previously been sentenced for 7 years in 1996 for raping a prostitute at knifepoint however was released after 5 years. This case demonstrates how the criminal justice system failed to punish Chapman harshly enough as he thought he could get away with it and undermined the aim to “protect the innocent”(ibit).

Harsher sentences for criminals effectively protects the public for a longer period however if a sentence is too harsh it is deemed unethical and it may lead to redirected aggression by the prisoner once released. Furthermore, it has been argued that longer prison sentences of just one month really do lead to a decrease in crime. The University of Birmingham produced research that harsher sentences of one month for burglary was ultimately reduced them the following year from “4,800 out of an annual total of 962,700”(Helm and Doward, 2012). This study also demonstrated that if offenders were to serve two-thirds of their sentence instead of half then “it suggests there would be 21,000 fewer burglaries in England”(ibit). In contrast, prison has been described as a “school for crime”(samenow, 2011). It is often said that prisoners boast about the crimes they have committed whilst in prison. By putting criminals in a concentrated environment together it can consequently lead to crime within prison walls, with there being 20,000 prisoners on prisoner attacks in 2016(Ross kemp doc). It has been said that prison is a “expensive way to make bad people worse” (Vanstone,2008, p/64). This builds upon (samehow 2011) argues that they even hatch new schemes and engineer crimes within prison walls; they are called “shot callers” this shows how the criminal justice system is allowing breeding of crime within the walls that it is meant to be preventing it. Although prison is a place where crime should not be committed, it is hard for officers to stop this happening. Drugs are available throughout prison with 1/3 of inmates testing positive for drugs when leaving prison (ross kemp doc). If a person was put in prison for a drug related offence and they are still taking drugs inside it is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money and it is not helping the individual whatsoever. This puts into question that are we punishing certain criminals too harshly and why are they not receiving help that they so desperately need. This highlights how the criminal justice system when punishing criminals, is not punishing them effectively and how our prison system so desperately needs reform to prevent misuse use of drugs within prison walls.

Rehabilitation aims to help offenders by assisting them to return to “normal, law abiding citizen” (Robinson and crow pg2). Theoretically, perceived, as utilitarian; Piper and Easton would argue that it is consequentialist so that an offender contributes to society at the end of their treatment (pg 361) and it offers “a more permanent fix in deterring crime” (Larrabee,2006,p.2). Rehabilitation schemes in the UK aim to help offenders “tackle the problems which fuel there criminal activity” (ministry of justice). Probation, police and local services take an “integrated approach to managing offenders tackle rehabilitation” (MOJ). Mackenzie said that rehabilitation operates effectively where there is “substantial meaningful contact between treatment officers and where programmes use behavioural methods to develop skills.” (ashworth) This approach supports the ministry of justice’ principle of de-centralisation so local areas are predominantly responsible identifying key offenders whom need help. This approach is extremely personalised and it allows local areas to collate and develop ideas that have proven successful. One success story of a prolific repeat offender who had been sentenced 60 times for some 280 offences (mainly burglary) which were committed to mainly fund a drug habit can be rehabilitated(ministry of justice). The offender was brought under the “integrated offender management approach” (Ibit) and had to confront the damage he had committed to his victims, while enrolled with drug treatment which ultimately led to him coming off his dependence of illegal drugs and not reoffending (MOJ)

The rehabilitation programme “Impact” works with statutory, voluntary and community organisations “to ensure a holistic approach to supporting individuals”(Impact). The programme has been a key factor in halving serious acquisitive crime from 16,000 in 2008 to 8,000 in 2011/2012. This demonstrates how the criminal justice system should aim to offer rehabilitation as an alternative to prison. In this case, prison quite clearly did not achieve the aim to deter the criminal from re committing crime. Rehabilitation also recognises the reality of social inequity and provides them with personalised help; it allows offenders to see light at the end of the tunnel and helps them understand the devastating effect that they have had on a victim and their family. Secondly, it eliminates them from the re-offending trance they have been stuck in.

However it could be argued that rehabilitation is a soft punishment as the offender may not want to change and by undertaking rehabilitation, they feel like they have gotten away with it. Even though there is the opportunity for restorative justice many victims may not want to do it because it is extremely distressing for them, just like in a rape case where the defendant pleads not guilty but is found guilty it makes the victim relive the trauma again. There is also a strong stigma attached to criminals and they find it hard to reintegrate back into a normalized life and society.

Punishing and rehabilitating prisoners simultaneously can be extremely effective at reducing reoffending rates. This is shown by Bastoy prison in Norway. The governor of the prison; Nilsen said the ethos of the prison was that “the punishment you lose your freedom. If we treat people like animals in prison when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings.” Halen prison is extremely liberal in its approach to inmates; they are given the opportunity to work at the prisons farm, stables, timber site and on the ferry and are educated via the prisons school. They earn £6 a day and are given a monthly allowance to buy their food so they can cook it themselves. This helps prepare prisoners and gives them the necessary skills for when they are released. One inmate who is serving time for committing murder says “Now I have no desire for drugs. When I get out I want to live and have a family. Here I am learning to do that”. This demonstrates that the criminal justice system is working effectively to punish prisoners as “for the victim the offender is in prison. That is justice.” but rehabilitate them at the same time as Bastoy prison only has a 16% re-offending rate.

To conclude there are many views on what the criminal justice system should aim to do. De Luca et al said, “Both punishment and rehabilitation are needed if the problem of crime is to be effectively addressed”. The number of prison places has nearly doubled from 44,000 in 1993 to over 83,000 currently. This demonstrates how punishment solely has not deterred criminals from committing crime. However, the use of rehabilitation and punishment works hand in hand to reduce re-offending. Investing in education and vocational prison programmes “save society 50,000 per inmate”. Speaking with a retired crown court judge, he expressed how he thought community service was successful. It punishes the offender but it also acts as an aid to rehabilitate them via instilling a work ethic and developing skills for employability whilst boosting their self-esteem. It can be said that each criminal needs to be assessed on whether they should be purely rehabilitated or collectively punished and rehabilitated via their records and if there were any aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. Rehabilitation does not work if the person at the time does not want to change, however if they were punished and rehabilitated at the same time it allows them to reflect on their crimes and change for the better. Bastoy prison is an excellent example of utilitarian justice where they punish criminals as they do not have freedom but they do invest in prisoners to better themselves and help them. The results are extremely rewarding with low re-offending rates. If the UK were to adopt the approach there is a very high chance re-offending rates would decrease. This would in turn would decrease the leakage in our economic cycle whereby the government is spending a substantial amount of taxpayer’s money on crime and prisons. it should benefit society by making it safer and by criminals turning their lives around and becoming positive and contributing member of society.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, The criminal justice system . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/criminology-essays/the-criminal-justice-system/> [Accessed 23-03-24].

These Criminology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

  • Accounting essays
  • Architecture essays
  • Business essays
  • Computer science essays
  • Criminology essays
  • Economics essays
  • Education essays
  • Engineering essays
  • English language essays
  • Environmental studies essays
  • Essay examples
  • Finance essays
  • Geography essays
  • Health essays
  • History essays
  • Hospitality and tourism essays
  • Human rights essays
  • Information technology essays
  • International relations
  • Leadership essays
  • Linguistics essays
  • Literature essays
  • Management essays
  • Marketing essays
  • Mathematics essays
  • Media essays
  • Medicine essays
  • Military essays
  • Miscellaneous essays
  • Music Essays
  • Nursing essays
  • Philosophy essays
  • Photography and arts essays
  • Politics essays
  • Project management essays
  • Psychology essays
  • Religious studies and theology essays
  • Sample essays
  • Science essays
  • Social work essays
  • Sociology essays
  • Sports essays
  • Types of essay
  • Zoology essays

Privacy Overview

Read our research on: TikTok | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

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

essay 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

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

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

Most whites – but only around a third of blacks – support the death penalty

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%).

essay of criminal justice system

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

America’s public school teachers are far less racially and ethnically diverse than their students

One-third of asian americans fear threats, physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising, majorities of americans see at least some discrimination against black, hispanic and asian people in the u.s., amid national reckoning, americans divided on whether increased focus on race will lead to major policy change, support for black lives matter has decreased since june but remains strong among black americans, most popular.

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 .

essay of criminal justice system

  • Social Policy

How can we improve our criminal justice system?

Bavneet Chauhan

Legal scholar Herbert L. Packer described two models of the criminal justice system: the crime-control model and the due-process model. The crime-control model focuses on harsh policies, laws and regulations. Its goal is to create swift and severe punishments for offenders. The due-process model, on the other hand, aims to promote policies that focus on individual rights. It tends to focus on fairness, justice and rehabilitation.

The dynamics of the crime-control model continue to reinforce prison as the default response to crime – an approach which is inadequate and deficient. A more restorative-justice/healing process for offenders would help foster human dignity, respect and well-being. That’s why Canada should move away from the crime-control model in favour of a restorative-justice model.

It is important to understand how the concept of punishment is linked to broader social theories and phenomena. Émile Durkheim , a well-known French sociologist, emphasizes how punishment is functional for society as it reaffirms the collective conscience and social solidarity. His theory provides an explanation for how moral panics and the public’s mass consumption of prison images in the media justify prisons and make people believe that they are the only way to deter crime and rehabilitate offenders.

Moving restorative justice into the mainstream

Marxist theory offers a holistic approach to the explanation of social life. It argues that society has a definite structure, as well as a central dynamic, which patterns social practices in specific and describable ways that connect various areas of social life. Marxist theory argues that the way economic and political activity is organized and controlled tend to shape the rest of society. These ideals are different from the legal and technical aspects of punishment, which tend to focus solely on deterring future criminal activity through laws that are retributive.

essay of criminal justice system

Retributive laws and policies focus on deterrence, denunciation and incapacitation. The truth is that crime-control, zero-tolerance and harsh policies do not work . The dominant retributive model of justice does not allow for healing the offenders because the purpose of incarceration is solely to punish them. Crime-control policies and harsh punishments lead to the increased racialization of prison populations, as well as the high levels of the marginalized and mentally ill in prisons. Crime-control policies and the punitive model of crime fail to look at how social and economic factors can make a person more prone to offend and ultimately get funneled into the criminal-justice system.

On the other hand, restorative-justice objectives look at how institutional and interpersonal relationships can address the issues of social domination that permeate through class, race, gender, culture, physical and mental ability, and sexual orientation. Restorative justice is a healing process, which focuses on social arrangements that foster human dignity, respect and well-being. The purpose of restorative justice is to address underlying systemic issues, provide victim-offender reintegration, restore harmony and address harm through various legal orders. This system further tries to help those marginalized individuals who are most vulnerable to experiencing discrimination and human rights violations to reintegrate back into society in a positive way.

Although restorative justice tries to move away from the punitive model of justice, there are some criticisms associated with restorative-justice policies as well. Many argue that the ideals associated with restorative justice can be implemented in society only once we start to question norms and alter existing social structures that make crime-control policies and the prison-punishment system necessary in the first place. There is a need for a new system of restorative justice that is based on social and economic justice, respect for all and restoration. Such a system is hard to implement in a social society where power and equality are not equally structured or equally distributed among members of the community. These inequalities and power differences legitimize the use of crime-control policies and the prison-punishment system, and pull the marginalized into the criminal justice system with the use of harsh laws and policies.

Given the failures of crime-control objectives and its exploitation of the most vulnerable populations in our society, Canada should move away from such harsh crime-control policies. We need restorative justice and a radical transformation in the way that we conceive justice and punishment. This is important because inmates need sustainable justice and rehabilitation. Alternative methods are needed to help the marginalized, those suffering from violence, mental health issues and drug addiction.

Bavneet Chauhan

You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.

Republish this article

Creative Commons License

by Navjot Kaur, Bavneet Chauhan. Originally published on Policy Options December 8, 2021

This <a target="_blank" href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2021/how-can-we-improve-our-criminal-justice-system/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org">Policy Options</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=101145&amp;ga4=G-GR919H3LRJ" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Related stories

Image for Policing women’s sexuality in the name of protection

Policing women’s sexuality in the name of protection

Image for Why do young offenders return to prison?

Why do young offenders return to prison?

Image for The missing voices at AI conferences

  • Science & Tech

The missing voices at AI conferences

Report Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

A montage of faces close up, both men and women.

Easily browse the critical components of this report…

Introduction

Throughout the nation, people of color are far more likely to enter the nation’s justice system than the general population. State and federal governments are aware of this disparity, and researchers and policymakers are studying the drivers behind the statistics and what strategies might be employed to address the disparities, ensuring evenhanded processes at all points in the criminal justice system. This primer highlights data, reports, state laws, innovations, commissions, approaches and other resources addressing racial and ethnic disparities within our country’s justice systems, to provide information for the nation’s decision-makers, state legislators.

Examining the Data and Innovative Justice Responses to Address Disparities

For states to have a clear understanding of the extent of racial and ethnic disparities in the states, they need to have data from all stages of the criminal justice system.

1. Law Enforcement

Disparities within traffic stops.

Contact with law enforcement, particularly at traffic stops, is often the most common interaction people have with the criminal legal system.

According to a  large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States , “police stop and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias.” The study, the largest to date, analyzed data on approximately 95 million stops from 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police departments across the country. The authors found Black drivers were less likely to be stopped after sunset, when it is more difficult to determine a driver’s race, suggesting bias in stop decisions. Furthermore, by examining the rate at which stopped drivers were searched and turned up contraband, the study found that the bar for searching Black and Hispanic drivers was lower than that for searching white drivers.

The study also investigated the effects of legalization of recreational cannabis on racial disparities in stop outcomes—specifically examining Colorado and Washington, two of the first states to legalize the substance. It found that following the legalization of cannabis, the number of total searches fell substantially. The authors theorized this may have been due to legalization removing a common reason officers cite for conducting searches. Nevertheless, Black and Hispanic drivers were still more likely to be searched than white drivers were post-legalization.

Data Collection Requirements in Statute

At least 23 states and the District of Columbia have laws related to or requiring collection of data when an individual is stopped by law enforcement. Some of these laws specifically prohibit racial profiling or require departments to adopt a policy to the same effect. Collection of demographic data can serve as a means of ensuring compliance with those provisions or informing officials on current practices so they can respond accordingly.

States have employed many reporting or other requirements for evaluation of the data collected under these laws. For example, Montana requires agencies to adopt a policy that provides for periodic reviews to “determine whether any peace officers of the law enforcement agency have a pattern of stopping members of minority groups for violations of vehicle laws in a number disproportionate to the population of minority groups residing or traveling within the jurisdiction…”

Maryland’s law requires local agencies to report their data to the Maryland Statistical Analysis Center. The center is then tasked with analyzing the annual reports from local agencies and posting the data in an online display that is filtered by jurisdiction and by each data point collected by officers.

The amount and kind of data collected also varies state by state. Some states leave the specifics to local jurisdictions or require the creation of a form based on statutory guidance, but most require the collection of demographic data including race, ethnicity, color, age, gender, minority group or state of residence. Notably, Missouri’s law requires collection of the following 10 data points:

  • The age, gender and race or minority group of the individual stopped.
  • The reasons for the stop.
  • Whether a search was conducted because of the stop.
  • If a search was conducted, whether the individual consented to the search, the probable cause for the search, whether the person was searched, whether the person’s property was searched, and the duration of the search.
  • Whether any contraband was discovered during the search and the type of any contraband discovered.
  • Whether any warning or citation was issued because of the stop.
  • If a warning or citation was issued, the violation charged or warning provided.
  • Whether an arrest was made because of either the stop or the search.
  • If an arrest was made, the crime charged.
  • The location of the stop.

State laws differ as to what kind of stop triggers a data reporting requirement. For example, Florida’s law applies to stops where citations are issued for violations of the state’s safety belt law. While Virginia’s law is broader, requiring all law enforcement to collect data pertaining to all investigatory motor vehicle stops, all stop-and-frisks of a person and all other investigatory detentions that do not result in arrest or the issuance of a summons.

Cultural Competency and Bias Reduction Training for Law Enforcement

At least 48 states and the District of Columbia have statutory training requirements for law enforcement. These laws require law enforcement personnel statewide to be trained on specific topics during their initial training and/or at recurring intervals, such as in-service training or continuing education.

In most states, the law simply requires training on a subject, leaving the specifics to be determined by state training boards or other local authorities designated by law. However, some states, such as Iowa and West Virginia, have very detailed requirements and even specify how many hours are required, the subject of the training, required content, whether the training must be received in person and who is approved to provide the training.

Overall, at least 26 states mandate some form of bias reduction training. Find out more about these laws on NCSL’s Law Enforcement Training webpage.

Law Enforcement Employment and Labor Policies

States have also addressed equity and accountability in policing through certification and accountability measures and hiring practices.

For example, a 2020 California law ( AB 846 ) changed state certification requirements by expanding current officer evaluations to screen for various kinds of bias in addition to physical, emotional or mental conditions that might adversely affect an officer’s exercise of peace officer powers. The law also requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to study, review and update regulations and screening materials to identify explicit and implicit bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability or sexual orientation related to emotional and mental condition evaluations.

In addition to screening, the California law requires every department or agency that employs peace officers to review the job descriptions used in recruitment and hiring and to make changes that deemphasize the paramilitary aspects of the job. The intent is to place more emphasis on community interaction and collaborative problem-solving.

Nevada ( AB 409 ), in 2021, added to statutory certification requirements mandating evaluation of officer recruits to identify implicit bias on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity expression. That same year, Nevada also enacted legislation ( SB 236 ) that requires law enforcement agencies to establish early warning systems to identify officers who display bias indicators or demonstrate other problematic behavior. It also requires increased supervision, training and, if appropriate, counseling to officers identified by the system. If an officer is repeatedly identified by the early warning system, the law requires the employing agency to consider consequences, including transfer from high-profile assignments or other means of discipline.

Another area of interest for states has been hiring a more diverse workforce in law enforcement and support agencies. For example, New Jersey SB 2767  (2020) required the state Civil Service Commission to conduct a statewide diversity analysis of the ethnic and racial makeup of all law enforcement agencies in the state.

Finally, at least one state addressed bias in policing through a state civil rights act. Massachusetts ( SB 2963 ) established a state right to bias-free professional policing. Conduct against an aggrieved person resulting in decertification by the Police Office Standards and Training Commission constitute a prima-facie violation of the right to bias-free professional policing. The law also specifies that no officer is immune from civil liability for violating a person’s right to bias-free professional policing if the conduct results in officer decertification.

Disproportionality of Native Americans in the Justice System According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 2015 to 2019, the number of American Indian or Alaska Native justice-involved individuals housed in local jails for federal correctional authorities, state prison authorities or tribal governments increased by  3.6% . Though American Indian and Alaska Natives make up a small proportion of the national incarcerated population relative to other ethnicities, some jurisdictions are finding they are disproportionately represented in the justice system. For example, in  Pennington County , S.D., it is estimated that 10% to 25% of the county’s residents are Native American, but they account for 55% of the county’s jail population. Similarly, Montana’s Commission on Sentencing  found  that while Native Americans represent 7% of the state’s general population, they comprised 17% of those incarcerated in correctional facilities in 2014 and 19% of the state’s total arrests in 2015.

Modal title

2. pretrial release and prosecution, risk assessments.

Recently, state laws have authorized or required courts to use pretrial risk assessment tools. There are about  two dozen pretrial risk assessment tools in use  across the states. 

Laws in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Vermont require courts to adopt or consider risk assessments in at least some, if not all, cases on a statewide basis. While laws in Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and West Virginia authorize or encourage, but do not require, adopting a risk assessment tool on a statewide basis.

This broad state adoption of risk assessment tools raises concern that systemic bias may impact their use. In 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder  said  pretrial risk assessment tools “may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and our society.”

More than 100 civil rights organizations expressed similar concerns in  a statement  following a 2017 convening. The dependance of pretrial risk assessment tools on data that reflect systemic bias is the crux of the issue. The statement highlights that police officers disproportionately arrest people of color, which impacts risk assessment tools that rely on arrest data. The statement then set out key principles mitigating harm that may be caused by risk assessments, recognizing their broad use across the country.

The conversation about bias in pretrial risk assessments is ongoing. In 2021, the Urban Institute published the report “ Racial Equity and Criminal Justice Risk Assessment .” In the report, the authors discuss and make recommendations for policymakers to balance the use of risk assessment as a component of evidence-based practice with pursuing goals of reducing racial and ethnic disparities. The authors state that “carefully constructed and properly used risk assessment instruments that account for fairness can help limit racial bias in criminal justice decision-making.”

Academic studies show varied results related to the use of risk assessments and their effect on racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. One study, “ Racist Algorithms or Systemic Problems ,” concludes “there is currently no valid evidence that instruments in general are biased against individuals of color,” and, “Where bias has been found, it appears to have more to do with the specific risk instrument.” In another study, “ Employing Standardized Risk Assessment in Pretrial Release Decisions ,” the authors, without making causal conclusions, find that “despite comparable risk scores, African American participants were detained significantly longer than Caucasian participants … and were less likely to receive diversion opportunity.”

In a recent report titled “ Civil Rights and Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments ,” the authors recommend steps to protect civil rights when risk assessment tools are used. The report underscores the importance of expansive transparency throughout design and implementation of these tools. It also suggests more community oversight and governance that promotes reduced incarceration and racially equitable outcomes. Finally, the report suggests decisions made by judges to detain should be rare, deliberate and not dependent solely on pretrial risk assessment instruments.

States are starting to regulate the use of risk assessments and promote best practices by requiring the tool to be validated on a regular basis, be free from racial or gender bias and that documents, data and records related to the tool be publicly available.

For example, California (2019  SB 36 ) requires a pretrial services agency validate pretrial risk assessment tools on a regular basis and to make specified information regarding the tool, including validation studies, publicly available. The law also requires the judicial council to maintain a list of pretrial services agencies that have satisfied the validation requirements and complied with the transparency requirements. California published its most recent validation  report  in June 2021.

Similarly, Idaho (2019  HB 118 ) now requires all documents, data, records and information used to build and validate a risk assessment tool to be publicly available for inspection, auditing and testing. The law requires public availability of ongoing documents, data, records and written policies on usage and validation of a tool. It also authorizes defendants to have access to calculations and data related to their own risk score and prohibits the use of proprietary tools.

Pretrial Release

A  recent report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights  evaluates the civil rights implications of pretrial release systems across the country.

Notable findings from the report include stark racial and gender disparities in pretrial populations with higher detention rates and financial conditions of release imposed on minority populations. The report also finds that more than 60% of defendants are detained pretrial because of an inability to pay financial conditions of release. 

States have recently enacted legislation to address defendants’ ability to pay financial conditions of release, with at least 11 states requiring courts to conduct ability-to-pay considerations when setting release conditions.  NCSL’s Statutory Framework of Pretrial Release report  has additional information about state approaches to pretrial release.

Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial discretion is a term used to describe the power of prosecutors to decide whether to charge a person for a crime, which criminal charges to file and whether to enter into a plea agreement. Some argue this discretion can be a source of disparities within the criminal justice system.

The  Prosecutorial Performance Indicators  (PPI), developed by Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago, is an example of an effort to address this. PPI provides prosecutors’ offices with a method to measure their performance through several indicators, including racial and ethnic disparities. As part of their work to bring accountability and oversight to prosecutorial discretion, PPI has created six measures specifically related to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. The PPI measures include the following:

  • Victimization of Racial/Ethnic Minorities.
  • Case Dismissal Differences by Victim Race/Ethnicity.
  • Case Filing Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
  • Pretrial Detention Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
  • Diversion Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.
  • Charging and Plea Offer Differences by Defendant Race/Ethnicity.

Below is a table highlighting disparity  data discovered through the use of PPI measures , gathered from specific jurisdictions.

Young People in the Justice System

As is the case in the adult system, compared to young white people, youth of color are disproportionately represented at every stage in the nation’s juvenile justice system. Overall juvenile placements  fell by 54%  between 2001 and 2015, but the placement rate for Black youth was 433 per 100,000, compared to a white youth placement rate of 86 per 100,000. According to a report from the Prison Policy Initiative, an advocacy organization, titled “ Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie 2019 ,” 14% of all those younger than 18 in the U.S. are Black, but they make up 42% of the boys and 35% of the girls in juvenile facilities. Additionally, Native American and Hispanic girls and boys are also overrepresented in the juvenile justice system relative to their share of the total youth population.  Information  from California reveals that prosecutors send Hispanic youth to adult court via “direct file” at over three times the rate of white youth.

At the federal level, the 2018 reauthorized  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act  requires states to identify and analyze data on race and ethnicity in state, local and tribal juvenile justice systems. States must identify disparities and develop and implement work plans to address them. States are required to document how they are addressing racial and ethnic disparities and establish a coordinating body composed of juvenile justice stakeholders to advise states, units of local government and Native American tribes. If a state fails to meet the act’s requirements, it will result in a 20% reduction of formula grant funding.

An example of a coordinating council that has examined extensive data is the Equity and Justice for All Youth Subcommittee of the  Georgia Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group . The group conducted a county-by-county assessment and analysis of disproportionality in Georgia and found one of the most effective ways to reduce disproportionate treatment of youth is to reduce harsh disciplinary measures in schools. This in turn helps reduce disproportionate referrals to the system.

3. Incarceration

Incarceration statistics help paint a picture of the disparities in the criminal justice system. Significant racial and ethnic disparities can be seen in both jails and prisons. According to the MacArthur Foundation’s  Safety and Justice Challenge website , “While Black and Latinx people make up 30% of the U.S. population, they account for 51% of the jail population.”

An  October 2021 report  from The Sentencing Project, an organization advocating for criminal justice reform, found that “Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at nearly five times the rate of whites, and Latinx people are 1.3 times as likely to be incarcerated than non-Latinx whites.” At the time of the report, there were 12 states where more than half of the prison population is Black and seven states with a disparity between the Black and white imprisonment rate of more than 9 to 1.

To have a clearer sense of the racial makeup of who is incarcerated at any given time, some systems developed data dashboards to provide information on their jail populations. In Allegheny County, Pa., for instance, the  jail data dashboard  is publicly available and provides a range of information on who is incarcerated in the jail. The dashboard provides an up-to-the-day look at the race, gender and age of the jail population. According to the dashboard, on average from Jan. 1, 2019, to mid-November 2021, 65% of individuals in the jail were Black.

Dashboards may also be established by the individual state, though these generally look back over a specified time, rather than providing a close-to-live look at the jail population. Colorado passed a law in 2019 ( HB 1297 ) requiring county jails to collect certain data and report it to the state Division of Criminal Justice on a quarterly basis. That data is compiled in a publicly available  Jail Data Dashboard . The dashboard includes information on the racial and ethnic makeup of jail populations in the state. In the second quarter of 2021, 88% of people incarcerated in jails in the state were white, 16% were Black, 2% were Native American and 1% were classified as “other race.” In the same quarter, ethnicity data for incarcerated people showed 67% were non-Hispanic, 33% were Hispanic and 9% were classified with “unknown ethnicity.”

Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections has an online  dashboard  providing similar information for the state prison population. The dashboard shows Black people make up 12% of the state’s overall population but 44% of the population in state correctional institutions, while white people make up 74% of the state population and 45% of the state prison population. While dashboards themselves don’t reduce disparities, they help create a clearer understanding of them.

4. Sentencing

Racial and ethnic disparities can also be seen in the sentencing of individuals following a criminal conviction. The use of sentencing enhancements and federal drug sentencing both provide examples of the disparities in sentencing.

Sentencing enhancements in California  have been found  to be applied disproportionately to people of color and individuals with mental illness according to the state’s  Committee on Revision of the Penal Code . More than 92% of the people sentenced for a gang enhancement in the state, for instance, are Black or Hispanic. The state has more than 150 different sentence enhancements and more than 80% of people incarcerated in the state are subject to a sentence enhancement.

In response to recommendations from the committee,  AB 333  was enacted in 2021 to modify the state’s gang enhancement statutes by reducing the list of crimes under which use of the current charge alone creates proof of a “pattern” of criminal gang activity and separates gang allegations from underlying charges at trial.

Impact Statements and Legislative Task Forces

Racial impact statements and data.

Legislatures are currently taking many steps to increase their understanding of racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. In some states, this has taken the form of racial and ethnic impact statements or corrections impact statements.

At least 18 states require  corrections impact statements  for legislation that would make changes to criminal offenses and penalties. These look at the fiscal impact of policy changes on correctional populations and criminal justice resources. A few states have required the inclusion of information on the impacts of policy changes on certain racial and ethnic groups.

Colorado has taken this approach. The state enacted  legislation in 2013  (SB 229) requiring corrections fiscal notes to include information on gender and minority data. In 2019, the state passed  legislation  (HB 1184) requiring the staff of the legislative council to prepare demographic notes for certain bills. These notes use “available data to outline the potential effects of a legislative measure on disparities within the state, including a statement of whether the measure is likely to increase or decrease disparities to the extent the data is available.”

Other states with laws requiring racial and ethnic impact statements include  Connecticut ,  Iowa ,  Maine ,  New Hampshire ,  New Jersey ,  Oregon  and  Virginia . Additionally, Florida  announced  a  partnership  in July 2019 “between the Florida Senate and Florida State University’s College of Criminology & Criminal Justice to analyze racial and ethnic impacts of proposed legislation.”  Minnesota’s Sentencing Commission has compiled racial impact statements for the legislature since 2006, though this is not required in law.

Legislative Studies and Task Forces

States are also taking a closer look at racial disparities within criminal justice systems by creating legislative studies or judicial task forces. These bodies examined disproportionalities in the criminal justice system, investigated possible causes and recommended solutions.

In 2018, Vermont  legislatively established  the state’s  Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel . The panel submitted its  report to the General Assembly  in 2019. Part of the report recommended instituting a public complaint process with the state’s Human Rights Commission to address perceived implicit bias across all state government systems. It also recommended training first responders to identify mental health needs, educating all law enforcement officers on bias and racial disparities and adopting a community policing paradigm. Finally, the panel agreed that increased and improved data collection was important to combat racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. The panel recommended “developing laws and rules that will require data collection that captures high-impact, high-discretion decision points that occur during the judicial processes.”

State lawmakers are well positioned to make policy changes to address the racial and ethnic disparities that research has shown are present throughout the criminal justice system. As they continue to develop a greater understanding of these disparities, state legislatures have an opportunity to make their systems fairer for all individuals who encounter the justice system, with the goal of  reducing or eliminating racial and ethnic disparities. 

  • NCSL on View the PDF Report NCSL

DO NOT DELETE - NCSL Search Page Data

Related resources, road to reform: state approaches to addressing debt-based driver’s license suspensions, automatic and/or automated criminal record clearing database, pretrial legislation database, contact ncsl.

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

  • What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
  • Admin Email
  • State Profiles
  • Advocacy Toolkit
  • Fact Sheets

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

Can you make a tax-deductible gift to support our work?

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024

By Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner    Tweet this March 14, 2024 Press release

Can it really be true that most people in jail are legally innocent? How much of mass incarceration is a result of the war on drugs, or the profit motives of private prisons? Have popular reforms really triggered a crime wave? These essential questions are harder to answer than you might expect. The various government agencies involved in the criminal legal system collect a lot of data, but very little is designed to help policymakers or the public understand what’s going on. The uncertainty that results muddies the waters around our society’s use of incarceration, giving lawmakers and lobbyists the opportunity to advance harmful policies that do not make us safe. As criminal legal system reforms become increasingly central to political debate — and are even scapegoated to resurrect old, ineffective “tough on crime” policies — it’s more important than ever that we get the facts straight and understand the big picture .

Further complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have one criminal legal system; instead, we have thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems. Together, these systems hold over 1.9 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,323 juvenile correctional facilities, 142 immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories — at a system-wide cost of at least $182 billion each year. 1 2

women symbol

This report offers some much-needed clarity by piecing together the data about this country’s disparate systems of confinement . It provides a detailed look at where and why people are locked up in the U.S., and dispels some common myths about mass incarceration to focus attention on overlooked issues that urgently require reform.

Pie chart showing the number of people locked up on a given day in the United States by facility type and the underlying offense using the newest data available in March 2024.

Slideshow 1. Swipe for more detailed views. For source dates and links, see the Methodology .

essay of criminal justice system

This big-picture view is a lens through which the main drivers of mass incarceration come into focus; 3 it allows us to identify important, but often ignored, systems of confinement, from immigration detention to involuntary commitment and youth confinement. In particular, local jails often receive short shrift in larger discussions about criminal legal system reform, but they play a critical role as “ incarceration’s front door ” and have a far greater impact than the daily population suggests.

Jails vs. prisons: What’s the difference?

They’ve got a lot in common, but they’re far from the same thing.

Prisons are facilities under state or federal control where people who have been convicted (usually of felonies) go to serve their sentences. Jails are city- or county-run facilities where a majority of people locked up are there awaiting trial (in other words, still legally innocent), many because they can’t afford to post bail . To make things a little more complicated, some people do serve their sentences in local jails, either because their sentences are short or because the jail is renting space to the state prison system.

While this pie chart provides a comprehensive snapshot of our correctional system, the graphic does not capture the enormous churn in and out of our correctional facilities, nor the far larger universe of people whose lives are affected by the criminal legal system. In 2022, about 469,000 people entered prison gates, but people went to jail more than 7 million times . 4 5 Some have just been arrested and will make bail within hours or days, while many others are too poor to make bail and remain in jail until their trial. 6 Only a small number (about 102,700 on any given day) have been convicted, and are generally serving misdemeanors sentences of under a year. At least 1 in 4 people who go to jail will be arrested again within the same year — often those dealing with poverty, mental illness, and substance use disorders, whose problems only worsen with incarceration .

Graph showing the 475,000 people in pretrial detention in the United States with the most recent data available as of March 2024. There are 448,000 people detained before trial in local jails, 15,000 in the federal pretrial system, 1,200 in Indian country jails, and 11,000 youth in youth facilities.

Slideshow 2. Swipe for more detail on pretrial detention.

essay of criminal justice system

With a sense of the big picture, the next question is: why are so many people locked up? How many are incarcerated for drug offenses? Are the profit motives of private companies driving incarceration? Or is it really about public safety and keeping dangerous people off the streets? There are a plethora of modern myths about incarceration. Most have a kernel of truth, but these myths distract us from focusing on the most important drivers of incarceration.

Ten myths about mass incarceration

The overcriminalization of drug use, the use of private prisons, and low-paid or unpaid prison labor are among the most contentious issues in the criminal legal system today because they inspire moral outrage. But they do not answer the question of why most people are incarcerated or how we can dramatically — and safely — reduce our use of confinement. Likewise, emotional responses to sexual and violent offenses often derail important conversations about the social, economic, and moral costs of incarceration and lifelong punishment. False notions of what a “violent crime” conviction means about an individual’s dangerousness continue to be used in an attempt to justify long sentences — even though incarceration does not deter crime and more incarceration is not what victims want. At the same time, misguided beliefs about the “services” provided by jails are used to rationalize the construction of massive new “mental health jails.” Finally, simplistic solutions to reducing incarceration, such as moving people from jails and prisons to community supervision, ignore the fact that “alternatives” to incarceration often lead to incarceration anyway. Focusing on the policy changes that can end mass incarceration, and not just put a dent in it, requires the public to put these issues into perspective.

Offense categories might not mean what you think

Reported offense data oversimplifies how people interact with the criminal legal system in two important ways.

To understand the main drivers of incarceration, the public needs to see how many people are incarcerated for different offense types. But the reported offense data oversimplifies how people interact with the criminal legal system in two important ways: it reports only one offense category per person, and it reflects the outcome of the legal process, obscuring important details of actual events.

First, when a person is in prison for multiple offenses, only the most serious offense is reported. 7 So, for example, there are people in prison for violent offenses who were also convicted of drug offenses, but they are included only in the “violent” category in the data. This makes it hard to grasp the complexity of criminal events, such as the role drugs may have played in violent or property offenses. We must also consider that almost all convictions are the result of plea bargains, where defendants plead guilty to a lesser offense, possibly in a different category or one that they did not actually commit, in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

Secondly, many of these categories group together people convicted of a wide range of offenses. For violent offenses especially, these labels can distort perceptions of individual “violent offenders” and exaggerate the scale of dangerous, violent crime. Even the seemingly clear-cut offense of “murder” is applied to a variety of situations and individuals: it lumps together the small number of serial killers with people who participated in acts that are unlikely to ever happen again, either due to circumstance or age . “Murder” also includes acts that the average person may not consider to be murder at all. In particular, the felony murder rule says that if someone dies during the commission of a felony, everyone involved can be as guilty of murder as the person who directly caused the death. Many may be surprised that a person who was acting as a lookout during a break-in where someone was accidentally killed can be convicted of murder. 8

We discuss this problem in more detail in The fourth myth: By definition, “violent crimes” involve physical harm , below.

The first myth: Private prisons are the corrupt heart of mass incarceration

In fact, just 8% of all incarcerated people are held in private prisons; the vast majority are in publicly-owned prisons and jails. 9 Some states have more people in private prisons than others, of course, and the industry has lobbied to maintain high levels of incarceration, but private prisons are essentially a parasite on the massive publicly-owned system — not the root of it.

Nevertheless, a range of private industries and even some public agencies continue to profit from mass incarceration. Many city and county jails rent space to other agencies , including state prison systems, 10 the U.S. Marshals Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Private companies are frequently granted contracts to operate prison food and health services (often so bad they result in major lawsuits), and prison and jail telecom and commissary functions have spawned multi-billion dollar private industries. By privatizing services like phone calls, medical care, and commissary, prisons and jails are offloading the costs of incarceration onto incarcerated people and their families, trimming their budgets at an unconscionable social cost.

Graph showing that only a small portion of incarcerated people, for all facility types are incarcerated in privately owned prisons and jails. In total, less than 8% are in private prisons, with 79,000 held for state prisons, 20,000 for the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service, 30,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 5,000 held for youth systems and 16,000 held for local authorities.

The second myth: Prisons are “factories behind fences” that exist to provide companies with a huge slave labor force

Simply put, private companies using prison labor are not what stands in the way of ending mass incarceration, nor are they the source of most prison jobs. Only about 6,000 people in prison — less than 1% — are employed by private companies through the federal PIECP program, which requires them to pay at least minimum wage before deductions. (A larger portion work for state-owned “correctional industries,” which pay much less, but this still only represents about 6% of people incarcerated in state prisons.) 11

essay of criminal justice system

But prisons do rely on the labor of incarcerated people for food service, laundry, and other operations, and they pay incarcerated workers unconscionably low wages: our 2017 study found that on average, incarcerated people earn between 86 cents and $3.45 per day for the most common prison jobs. 12 In at least five states, those jobs pay nothing at all. Moreover, work in prison is compulsory, with little regulation or oversight, and incarcerated workers have few rights and protections . If they refuse to work, incarcerated people face disciplinary action. For those who do work, the paltry wages they receive often go right back to the prison, which charges them for basic necessities like medical visits and hygiene items . Forcing people to work for low or no pay and no benefits, while charging them for necessities, allows prisons to shift the costs of incarceration to incarcerated people — hiding the true cost of running prisons from most Americans.

The third myth: Releasing “nonviolent drug offenders” would end mass incarceration

It’s true that police, prosecutors, and judges continue to punish people harshly for nothing more than drug possession. Drug offenses still account for the incarceration of over 360,000 people, and drug convictions remain a defining feature of the federal prison system . And until the pandemic hit (and the official crime data became less reliable ), police were still making over 1 million drug possession arrests each year, 13 many of which lead to prison sentences. Drug arrests continue to give residents of over-policed communities criminal records , hurting their employment prospects and increasing the likelihood of longer sentences for any future offenses.

graph thumbnail from reforms without results report

Nevertheless, 4 out of 5 people in prison or jail are locked up for something other than a drug offense — either a more serious offense or an even less serious one. To end mass incarceration, we will have to change how our society and our criminal legal system respond to crimes more serious than drug possession. We must also stop incarcerating people for behaviors that are even more benign.

Graph showing the 361,000 people in state prisons, local jails, federal prisons, youth prisons, and military prisons for drug offenses. State prisons are the largest slice at 134,000 and local jails at 138,000. The federal system held 89,000.

Slideshow 3. Swipe for more detail on the War on Drugs

essay of criminal justice system

The fourth myth: By definition, “violent crime” involves physical harm

The distinction between “violent” and “nonviolent” crime means less than you might think; in fact, these terms are so widely misused that they are generally unhelpful in a policy context. In the public discourse about crime, people typically use “violent” and “nonviolent” as substitutes for serious versus nonserious criminal acts. That alone is a fallacy , but worse, these terms are also used as coded (often racialized) language to label individuals as inherently dangerous versus non-dangerous .

essay of criminal justice system

In reality, state and federal laws apply the term “violent” to a surprisingly wide range of criminal acts — including many that don’t involve any physical harm. In some states, purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, and stealing drugs are considered violent crimes . Burglary is generally considered a property crime, but an array of state and federal laws classify burglary as a violent crime in certain situations, such as when it occurs at night, in a residence, or with a weapon present. So even if the building was unoccupied, someone convicted of burglary could be punished for a violent crime and end up with a long prison sentence and a “violent” record.

The common misunderstanding of what “violent crime” really refers to — a legal distinction that often has little to do with actual or intended harm — is one of the main barriers to meaningful criminal legal system reform. Reactionary responses to the idea of violent crime often lead policymakers to categorically exclude from reforms people convicted of legally “violent” crimes. But almost half (47%) of people in prison and jail are there for offenses classified as “violent,” so these carveouts end up gutting the impact of otherwise well-crafted policies. As we and many others have explained before , cutting incarceration rates to anything near international norms will be impossible without changing how we respond to violent crime. To start, we have to be clearer about what that loaded term really means.

The fifth myth: People in prison for violent or sexual crimes are too dangerous to be released

Of course, many people convicted of violent offenses have caused serious harm to others. But how does the criminal legal system determine the risk that they pose to their communities? Again, the answer is too often “we judge them by their offense type,” rather than “we evaluate their individual circumstances.” This reflects the particularly harmful myth that people who commit violent or sexual crimes are incapable of rehabilitation and thus warrant many decades or even a lifetime of punishment.

As lawmakers and the public increasingly agree that past policies have led to unnecessary incarceration, it’s time to consider policy changes that go beyond the low-hanging fruit of “non-non-nons” — people convicted of non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual offenses. Again, if we are serious about ending mass incarceration, we will have to change our responses to more serious and violent crime.

Recidivism: A slippery statistic

How well do different measures of recidivism reflect actual failure or success upon reentry?

As long as we are considering recidivism rates as a measure of public safety risk, we should also consider how recidivism is defined and measured. While this may sound esoteric, this is an issue that affects an important policy question: at what point — and with what measure — do we consider someone’s reentry a success or failure?

The term “recidivism” suggests a relapse in behavior, a return to criminal offending. But what is a valid sign of criminal offending: self-reported behavior, arrest, conviction, or incarceration? Defining recidivism as rearrest casts the widest net and results in the highest rates, but arrest does not suggest conviction, nor actual guilt. More useful measures than rearrest include conviction for a new crime, re-incarceration, or a new sentence of imprisonment; the latter may be most relevant, since it measures offenses serious enough to warrant a prison sentence. Importantly, people convicted of violent offenses have the lowest recidivism rates by each of these measures . However, the recidivism rate for violent offenses is a whopping 48 percentage points higher when rearrest, rather than imprisonment, is used to define recidivism.

The cutoff point at which recidivism is measured also matters: If someone is arrested for the first time 5, 10, or 20 years after they leave prison, that’s very different from someone arrested within months of release. The most recent government study of recidivism reported that 82% of people incarcerated in state prison were arrested at some point in the 10 years following their release. However, the vast majority of people in this group were arrested within the first three years, and more than half within the first year. The longer the time period, the higher the reported recidivism rate — but the lower the actual threat to public safety.

A related question is whether the particular post-release offense matters. For example, 69% of people imprisoned for a violent offense are rearrested within five years of release, but only 44% are rearrested for another violent offense; they are much more likely to be rearrested for a public order offense. If someone convicted of robbery is arrested years later for a liquor law violation, it makes no sense to view this very different, much less serious, offense the same way we would another arrest for robbery. Moreover, public order offenses often include “technical” violations, so in many states, recidivism statistics are inflated by these non-criminal infractions.

A final note about recidivism: While policymakers frequently cite reducing recidivism as a priority, few states collect the data that would allow them to monitor and improve their own performance in real time. For example, the Council of State Governments asked correctional systems what kind of recidivism data they collect and publish for people leaving prison and people starting probation. What they found is that states typically track just one measure of post-release recidivism, and few states track recidivism while on probation at all:

Chart showing which states track and publish rearrest, reconviction, and/or reincarceration for people released from prison. Almost every state tracks reincarceration, few track either of the other measures.

If state-level advocates and political leaders want to know if their state is even trying to reduce recidivism, we suggest one easy litmus test: Do they collect and publish basic data about the number and causes of people’s interactions with the justice system while on probation, or after release from prison?

Recidivism data do not support the belief that people who commit violent crimes ought to be locked away for decades for the sake of public safety. People convicted of violent and sexual offenses are actually among the least likely to be rearrested , and those convicted of rape or sexual assault have rearrest rates 20% lower than all other offense categories combined. One reason for the lower rates of recidivism among people convicted of violent offenses: age is one of the main predictors of violence. The risk for violence peaks in adolescence or early adulthood and then declines with age, yet we incarcerate people long after their risk has declined. 14

Graph showing that of all offense types, people who are released from prison after a conviction for a violent offense are the least likely to go back to prison for a similar offense.

The sixth myth: Reforming the criminal legal system leads to more crime

The specter of “rising crime” has re-emerged as a central issue among elected officials, political candidates, and in media commentary. Their explanations and exaggerations of recent crime trends don’t add up, but these lies have serious consequences. After ticking up slightly in 2020 , the violent crime rate appears to have fallen dramatically in 2023. In general, violent crime has remained remarkably steady over the last 15 years; property crime has trended steeply downward and remains near historic lows (with the exception of auto theft). Overall, the crime rate appears to be the lowest it’s been since 1963 . 15

Jail and prison populations have continued to rebound toward their pre-pandemic levels — not because of rising crime, but because pandemic-related delays in the system have subsided. 16 Politics present another important explanation: many in law enforcement and on the right (and some Democrats , too) have rushed to blame recent reforms for minor shifts in crime trends in an effort to resurrect the same “tough on crime” policies that failed in the 1980s and 90s. The combination of restored court capacity and the return to 90s-era crime policies crime policies — not COVID-era releases, 17 bail reform, changes to police budgets, “progressive” prosecutors, or other popular reforms — best explain why more people are behind bars this year than last. In reality, a number of studies have shown:

  • No evidence that progressive prosecutors were to blame for the increase in homicides during the pandemic or in the five years before it. 18
  • Murder rates were an average of 40% higher in “red” states compared to “blue” states in 2020; more broadly, murder rates over the years 2000-2020 were 23% higher on average in “red” states.
  • Releasing people pretrial doesn’t harm public safety . Moreover, the increases in certain types of crime were seen in cities across the country, most of which have not enacted bail reforms.
  • Far from being “ defunded ,” police budgets have increased in the vast majority of cities and counties. And again, cities that increased funding, enacted no bail reforms, and did not elect “progressive” prosecutors also saw increases in homicides in 2020 and 2021.

While crime rates remain near historic lows, what has actually changed most is the public’s perception of crime , which is driven less by first-hand experience than by the false claims of reform opponents. These false claims are deliberately stoked to undo the hard-won, evidence supported, common sense reforms that have only begun to put a dent in mass incarceration.

Bar graph showing decline in Index crime rates from 2018 to 2023

The seventh myth: Harsh punishments deter crime, making us safer

Many people mistakenly believe that long sentences, paired with austere and even brutal prison conditions, will have a deterrent effect on crime. But research has consistently found that harsher sentences do not serve as effective “examples” that would prevent new people from committing serious crimes. In 2016, the National Institute of Justice summarized the research on deterrence, finding that prison sentences, and especially long sentences, do little to deter future crime. 19 Another study concluded that, compared to punishments that don’t involve prison or jail time, incarceration has either no effect or — worse — even a “mildly criminogenic impact” on future lawbreaking. In other words, incarceration is counterproductive: While a prison sentence can incapacitate people in the short term, it actually increases the risk that someone will commit a crime after their release.

People face extremely poor living conditions in practically every jail and prison, which negatively impacts their odds of success upon release, their families, and public health at large. Routine failure to provide for the medical needs of incarcerated people is harmful (even deadly) for those inside, and strains family resources and healthcare infrastructure after they’re released — and nearly everyone will eventually be released. Poor nutrition compounds health problems, as does contaminated water, pests, and exposure to extreme heat and cold . The physical and psychological effects of incarceration, including the PTSD-like Post-Incarceration Syndrome , make it harder to maintain employment and housing, trapping people in cycles of incarceration. Put simply, when people are released from prison, their health and wellbeing are intertwined with that of the community, so the harms visited upon them inside impact everyone.

The eighth myth: Crime victims support long prison sentences

Policymakers, judges, and prosecutors often invoke the name of victims to justify long sentences for violent offenses. But contrary to the popular narrative, most victims of violence want violence prevention, not incarceration . Again, harsh sentences don’t deter violent crime, and many victims understand that incarceration can make people more of a public safety risk. National survey data show that most victims support violence prevention, social investment, and alternatives to incarceration that address the root causes of crime, not more investment in carceral systems that cause more harm. 20 This suggests that they care more about the health and safety of their communities than they do about retribution.

Chart showing responses from a 2022 survey of violent crime victims. 75% prefer holding people accountable through options beyond imprisonment. 80% prefer investing more in mental health treatment instead of in prisons and jails. 72% prefer offering incentives for pre-release rehabilitation, like time credits toward earlier release, over requiring completion of the full sentence. 71% prefer reducing jail populations through pretrial release, diversion, community service, or treatment programs.

Moreover, people convicted of crimes are often victims themselves, complicating the moral argument for harsh punishments as “justice.” While conversations about justice tend to treat perpetrators and victims of crime as two entirely separate groups, people who engage in criminal acts are often victims of violence and trauma, too — a fact behind the adage that “hurt people hurt people.” 21 As victims of crime know, breaking this cycle of harm will require greater investments in communities, not the carceral system.

The ninth myth: Some people need to go to jail to get treatment and services

Bar chart showing the percent of jails that offer each kind of opioid use disorder treatment. The most effective treatments, initiation and continuation of MAT, are the least available in jails.

It’s absolutely true that people ensnared in the criminal legal system have a lot of unmet needs. But jails and prisons are no place to recover from a mental health crisis or substance use disorder — they are designed for punishment , not care. Local jails, especially, are filled with people who need medical care and social services, but jails have repeatedly failed to provide these services. For example, while two-thirds of people in local jails have substance use disorders, only a tiny fraction of all jails provide medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder — the gold standard for care. That means that rather than providing drug treatment, jails more often interrupt drug treatment by cutting patients off from their medications. Between 2000 and 2018, the number of people who died of intoxication while in jail increased by almost 400%; typically, these individuals died within just one day of admission. 22

essay of criminal justice system

Similarly, jails often put people with mental health problems in solitary confinement, provide limited access to counseling, and leave them unmonitored due to constant staffing shortages. The result: suicide is the leading cause of death in local jails, with death rates far exceeding those found in the general U.S. population. Given this track record, the trend of proposing new “ mental health jails ” to respond to decades of disinvestment in community-based services is particularly alarming. Jails are not safe detox facilities, nor are they capable of providing the therapeutic environment people require for long-term recovery and healing. Even when other options for providing mental health and substance use treatment are scarce, decisionmakers should not rely on correctional settings to do so.

The tenth myth: Expanding community supervision is the best way to reduce incarceration

Community supervision, which includes probation, parole, and pretrial supervision, is often seen as a “lenient” punishment or as an ideal “alternative” to incarceration. But while remaining in the community is generally preferable to being locked up, the conditions 23 imposed on those under supervision are often so restrictive that they set people up to fail. 24 The long supervision terms, numerous and burdensome requirements , and constant surveillance result in frequent “failures,” often for minor infractions like breaking curfew or failing to pay unaffordable supervision fees.

At last count, at least 128,000 people were incarcerated for such non-criminal “technical violations” of probation or parole. 25 These supervision violations accounted for 27% of all admissions to state and federal prisons. In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that almost a quarter (24%) of people in state prisons were on probation at the time of their arrest, underscoring how this “alternative to incarceration” often simply delays incarceration.

Newer methods of community supervision don’t simply delay incarceration; they replicate the experience so closely through the use of technology that they amount to “ e-carceration ” or “ electronic prisons .” 26 The use of electronic monitoring, in particular — whether via ankle shackle, phone app, or other technology — has exploded in recent years, especially in the contexts of pretrial supervision and immigration enforcement. 27 Proponents argue the technology improves court compliance and public safety, but a recent study found the practice accomplishes neither of these goals. The technology is unreliable, frequently leading to security breaches and false alarms , and it has created yet another path to incarceration via technical violations. 28 Like probation before it, electronic monitoring is touted as an “alternative” to incarceration, but in reality it is expanding the scope of correctional control, not reducing the number of people behind bars.

Graph showing that technical violations of the rules of both probation and parole — not new crimes — are the leading reasons people do not succeed on probation or parole

Slideshow 4. Swipe for more details about how community supervision and electronic monitoring can lead to more incarceration.

essay of criminal justice system

The high costs of low-level offenses

Most people in the U.S. criminal legal system are not accused of serious crimes; more often, they are charged with misdemeanors or non-criminal violations. Yet even low-level offenses, like technical violations of probation and parole, can lead to incarceration and other serious consequences. Rather than investing in community-driven safety initiatives , cities and counties are still pouring vast amounts of public resources into the processing and punishment of these minor offenses.

Probation & parole violations and “holds” lead to unnecessary incarceration

Often overlooked in discussions about mass incarceration are the various “ holds ” that keep people behind bars for administrative reasons. A common example is when people on probation or parole are jailed for violating their supervision, either for a new crime or a non-criminal (or “technical”) violation. If a parole or probation officer suspects that someone has violated supervision conditions, they can file a “detainer” (or “hold”), rendering that person ineligible for release on bail. For people struggling to rebuild their lives after conviction or incarceration, returning to jail for a minor infraction can be profoundly destabilizing. The most recent data show that nationally , almost 1 in 5 (19%) people in jail are there for a violation of probation or parole, though in some places these violations or detainers account for over one-third of the jail population. This problem is not limited to local jails, either; in 2019, the Council of State Governments found that nearly 1 in 4 people in state prisons are incarcerated as a result of supervision violations.

A particularly disturbing type of “hold” is becoming increasingly common: people held in jails while awaiting transfer to psychiatric facilities . One recent study reports that “thousands of [people] with serious mental illness languish in jail for months, or even years, waiting for a state hospital bed to open.” 29 Typically, these vulnerable adults are in need of evaluation or restoration of their competency to stand trial. But being held in jails puts them at heightened risk of victimization, self-harm, and even additional criminal charges for behaviors that are actually symptoms of their illness. The result of disinvestment in mental health infrastructure and the criminalization of mental illness, these “holds” are not only unnecessary, but unconscionable.

Misdemeanors: Minor offenses with major consequences

The “ massive misdemeanor system ” in the U.S. is another important but overlooked contributor to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. For behaviors as benign as jaywalking or sitting on a sidewalk, an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges sweep droves of Americans into the criminal legal system each year (and that’s excluding civil violations and speeding). These low-level offenses, along with other non-felony offenses, typically account for about 25% of the daily jail population nationally, and much more in some states and counties . The rampant criminalization of homelessness and aggressive enforcement of these laws — almost all misdemeanors — also contributes to harmful and costly cycles of homelessness and incarceration.

Misdemeanor charges may sound trivial, but they carry serious financial, personal, and social costs, especially for defendants but also for broader society, which finances the processing of these court cases and all of the unnecessary incarceration that comes with them. And then there are the moral costs: People charged with misdemeanors are often not appointed counsel and are pressured to plead guilty and accept a probation sentence to avoid jail time. This means that innocent people routinely plead guilty and are then burdened with the many collateral consequences that come with a criminal record, as well as the heightened risk of future incarceration for probation violations. A misdemeanor system that pressures innocent defendants to plead guilty seriously undermines American principles of justice.

“Low-level fugitives” live in fear of incarceration for missed court dates and unpaid fines

Defendants can end up in jail even if their offense is not punishable with jail time. Why? Because if a defendant fails to appear in court or to pay fines and fees, the judge can issue a “bench warrant” for their arrest, directing law enforcement to jail them in order to bring them to court. While there is currently no national estimate of the number of active bench warrants, their use is widespread and, in some places, incredibly common. In Monroe County , N.Y., for example, over 3,000 people have an active bench warrant at any time, more than 3 times the number of people in the county jails.

But bench warrants are often unnecessary. Most people who miss court are not trying to avoid the law ; more often, they forget, are confused by the court process, or have a schedule conflict. Once a bench warrant is issued, however, defendants frequently end up living as “ low-level fugitives ,” quitting their jobs, becoming transient, and/or avoiding public life (even hospitals) to avoid having to go to jail.

Lessons from the smaller “slices”: Youth, immigration, and involuntary commitment

Looking more closely at incarceration by offense type also exposes some disturbing facts about the 35,500 youth in confinement in the United States: too many are there for a “most serious offense” that is not even a crime . For example, there are 2,700 youth behind bars for non-criminal violations of their probation rather than for a new offense. An additional 700 youth are locked up for “status” offenses , which are “behaviors that are not law violations for adults such as running away, truancy, and incorrigibility.” 30 About 1 in 11 youth held for a criminal or delinquent offense is locked in an adult jail or prison , and most of the others are held in juvenile facilities that look and operate a lot like prisons and jails.

We also know that for many children, legal system involvement overlaps with other kinds of “systems” involvement, such as the foster care system : almost half of youth in foster care have an encounter with the criminal legal system by age 17. The criminalization of youth is apparent in the adult prison population: more than one-third (38%) of people in state prisons were first arrested before they turned 16 .The early criminalization of youth is apparent in the adult prison population: more than one-third (38%) of people in state prisons were first arrested before they turned 16 .

Graph showing the number of youth confined in the United States by offense and whether or not they are incarcerated with adults using the most recent data available in March 2024. There were a total of 35,500 confined youth in the United States. The juvenile justice system held 25,000; the adult prison and jail systems held 2,300; and the immigration system held 8,000.

Slideshow 5. Swipe for more detail about youth confinement, immigrant confinement, and psychiatric confinement.

essay of criminal justice system

Turning to the people who are locked up criminally and civilly for immigration-related reasons , we find that over 6,000 people are in federal prisons for criminal convictions of immigration offenses, and 12,400 more are held pretrial or presentence by the U.S. Marshals Service. The vast majority of people incarcerated for criminal immigration offenses are accused of illegal entry or illegal reentry — in other words, for no more serious offense than crossing the border without permission. 31

Small line graph showing the exponential growth of the Alternatives to Detention program between 2015 and 2023

Another 38,000 people are civilly detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) not for any crime, but simply because they are facing deportation. 32 People detained by ICE are physically confined in federally-run or privately-run immigration detention facilities, or in local jails under contract with ICE. While this number is below what it was pre-pandemic, it’s actually climbed back up from a record low of 13,500 people in ICE detention in early 2021. 33 In fact, ICE is very rapidly expanding its overall surveillance and control over the non-criminal migrant population by growing its electronic monitoring-based “alternatives to detention” program. 34

An additional 8,000 unaccompanied children are held in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), awaiting placement with parents, family members, or friends. Their number has more than doubled since January of 2020. While these children are not held for any criminal or delinquent offense, most are held in shelters or even juvenile placement facilities under detention-like conditions. 35

Adding to the universe of people who are confined because of criminal legal system involvement, 25,000 people are involuntarily committed in state psychiatric hospitals and civil commitment centers. 36 37 Many of these people are not even convicted, and some are held indefinitely. These “forensic patients” include people being evaluated or treated for incompetency to stand trial, as well as those found not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill, who may remain hospitalized for decades or for life. 38 Roughly 6,000 are people convicted of sex-related crimes who are involuntarily committed or detained after their prison sentences are complete. While the facilities they are held in aren’t typically run by departments of correction, they are in reality much like prisons . Meanwhile, at least 38 states allow involuntary commitment for substance use disorder treatment , and in many cases, people are sent to actual prisons and jails, which are inappropriate places for treatment. 39

Beyond the “Whole Pie”: Community supervision, poverty, age, and race and gender disparities

Once we have wrapped our minds around the “whole pie” of mass incarceration, we should zoom out and note that people who are incarcerated are only a fraction of those impacted by the criminal legal system. There are another 800,000 people on parole and a staggering 2.9 million people on probation. Many millions more have completed their sentences but are still living with a criminal record, a stigmatizing label that comes with collateral consequences such as barriers to employment and housing.

Chart showing how many people in the U.S. are directly impacted by mass incarceration. In addition to the 1.9 million people incarcerated today, 4.9 million are formerly imprisoned, 19 million have been convicted of a felony, 79 million have a criminal record, and 113 million adults have an immediate family member who has ever been to prison or jail.

Beyond identifying how many people are impacted by the criminal legal system, we should also focus on who is most impacted and who is left behind by policy change. Poverty, for example, plays a central role in mass incarceration. People in prison and jail are disproportionately poor compared to the overall U.S. population. 40 The criminal legal system punishes poverty, beginning with the high price of money bail : The median felony bail bond amount ($10,000) is the equivalent of 8 months’ income for the typical detained defendant. As a result, people with low incomes are more likely to face the harms of pretrial detention . Poverty is not only a predictor of incarceration; it is also frequently the outcome, as a criminal record and time spent in prison destroys wealth , creates debt, initiates or perpetuates cycles of homelessness, and decimates job opportunities . 41

essay of criminal justice system

It’s no surprise that people of color — who face much greater rates of poverty — are dramatically overrepresented in the nation’s prisons and jails. These racial disparities are particularly stark for Black Americans, who make up 35% of the prison and jail populations but only 14% of all U.S residents. 42 The same is true for women, whose incarceration rates have for decades risen faster than men’s, and who are often behind bars because of financial obstacles such as an inability to pay bail. As policymakers continue to push for reforms that reduce incarceration, they should avoid changes that will widen disparities, as has happened with juvenile confinement and with women in state prisons .

Finally, while states have made progress in reducing youth confinement — due to developments in adolescent brain research , mounting evidence that confinement leads to worse outcomes, and dogged advocacy to protect youth — the elder population in prison has only grown. Many are stuck serving excessively long sentences, despite the evidence that their incarceration is both extremely costly and unnecessary to ensure public safety.

Pie chart showing that people in correctional facilities are only about a third of the people under correctional control in the United States. Most (52%) are on probation. The remainder are on parole.

Slideshow 6. Swipe for more detail about race, gender, and income disparities.

essay of criminal justice system

Equipped with the full picture of how many people are locked up in the United States, where, and why, we all have a better foundation for moving the conversation about criminal legal system reform forward. For example, the data make it clear that ending the war on drugs will not alone end mass incarceration, though the federal government and some states have taken an important step by reducing the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses. Looking at the “whole pie” of mass incarceration opens up conversations about where it makes sense to focus our energies at the local, state, and national levels. For example:

  • How can we effectively invest in communities to make it less likely that someone comes into contact with the criminal legal system in the first place? And what measures can help aid successful reentry and end the vicious cycle of re-incarceration that so many individuals and families experience?
  • Can we persuade government officials and prosecutors to revisit the reflexive, simplistic policymaking that has served to increase incarceration for “violent” offenses? How can we eliminate policy “carveouts” that exclude broad categories of people from reforms and end up gutting the impact of reforms?
  • What will it take to embolden policymakers and the public to do what it takes to shrink the second largest slice of the pie — the thousands of local jails? And what will it take to redirect public spending to smarter investments like community-based drug treatment and job training?
  • While the federal prison system is a small slice of the total pie, how can improved federal policies and financial incentives be used to advance state and county-level reforms? And for their part, how can elected sheriffs, district attorneys, and judges — who all control larger shares of the correctional pie — slow the flow of people into the criminal legal system?
  • Given that the companies with the greatest impact on incarcerated people are not private prison operators, but service providers that contract with public facilities , how can governments end contracts that squeeze money from those behind bars and their families?
  • What reforms can we implement to both reduce the number of people incarcerated in the U.S. and the well-known racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal legal system?
  • What lessons can we learn from the pandemic? Are federal, state, and local governments prepared to respond to future pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and other emergencies, including with plans to decarcerate? And how can states and the federal government better utilize compassionate release and clemency powers moving forward?

The United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate of virtually any democratic nation on earth. Looking at the big picture of the 1.9 million people locked up in the United States on any given day, we can see that something needs to change . Both policymakers and the public have the responsibility to carefully consider each individual slice of the carceral “pie” and ask whether legitimate social goals are served by putting each group behind bars, and whether any benefit really outweighs the social and fiscal costs.

Even narrow policy changes, such as ending incarceration for “technical” violations, can meaningfully reduce our society’s use of incarceration. At the same time, we should be wary of proposed reforms that seem promising but will have only minimal effect, because they simply transfer people from one slice of the correctional “pie” to another or needlessly exclude broad swaths of people. Keeping the big picture in mind is critical if we hope to develop strategies that actually shrink the “whole pie.”

Now that you’ve seen The Whole Pie

Get the latest criminal justice data in your inbox!

By signing up with this form, you’ll receive our general newsletter. Subscribe to our other newsletters here instead .

Data sources & methodology

This section covers a lot of ground, from why we attempt to piece together the data ourselves in the first place to where we source the data and how we adjust it to make the various pieces fit together. Read on to learn:

  • Why we — and not the government — compile the data   ⤵
  • Which data sources we relied on for state and federal prisons and local jail populations   ⤵
  • Which data sources we used for the smaller slices of the “pie”: youth, immigration, involuntary commitments, U.S. territories, Indian Country jails, and the military  ⤵
  • How we calculated the broader “pie” of correctional control, including probation and parole systems   ⤵
  • How we determined the number of private facilities   ⤵
  • How we adjusted the data to make sure people were only counted once   ⤵
  • What data we used to make our racial disparities graph — and why   ⤵

People new to criminal legal issues might reasonably expect that a big picture analysis like this would be produced not by advocates, but by the criminal legal system itself. The unfortunate reality is that there isn’t one centralized system to do such an analysis. Instead, even thinking just about adult corrections, we have a federal system, 50 state systems, 3,000+ county systems, 25,000+ municipal systems, and so on. Each of these systems collects data for its own purposes that may or may not be compatible with data from other systems and that might duplicate or omit people counted by other systems

This isn’t to discount the work of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which, despite limited resources, undertakes the Herculean task of organizing and standardizing the data on correctional facilities. And it’s not to say that the FBI doesn’t work hard to aggregate and standardize police arrest and crime report data. But the fact is that the local, state, and federal agencies that carry out the work of the criminal legal system — and are the sources of BJS and FBI data — weren’t set up to answer many of the simple-sounding questions about the “system.”

Similarly, there are systems of confinement that might not consider themselves part of the criminal legal system, but should be included in a holistic view of incarceration. Juvenile justice, immigration detention, civil commitment of people with sex-related convictions, and involuntary commitment to psychiatric hospitals for criminal legal system involvement are examples of this broader universe of confinement that is often ignored. The “whole pie” incorporates data from these systems to provide the most comprehensive view of incarceration possible.

To produce this report, we took the most recent data available for each part of these systems, and, where necessary, adjusted the data to ensure that each person was only counted once, only once, and in the right place. ⤴

Data sources

This report uses the most recent data available on the number of people in various types of facilities and the most significant charge or conviction. Because the various systems of confinement collect and report data on different schedules, this report reflects population data collected between 2019 and 2024. Furthermore, because not all types of data are updated each year, we sometimes had to calculate estimates; for example, we applied the percentage distribution of offense types from the previous year to the current year’s total count data. For this reason, we chose to round most labels in the graphics to the nearest thousand, except where rounding to the nearest ten, nearest one hundred, or the nearest 500 was more informative given the context. This rounding process may also result in some parts not adding up precisely to the total.

Our data sources were:

  • State prisons: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 1 provides the total population as of December 31, 2022, and Table 16 provides data (as of December 31, 2021) that we use to calculate the ratio of different offense types.
  • Jails: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 1 and Table 5, reporting average daily population and convicted status for midyear 2021, and our analysis of the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 . 43
  • Bureau of Prisons: Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Population Statistics , reporting data as of January 18, 2024 (total population of 156,845), and Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 19, reporting data as of September 30, 2022 (we applied the percentage distribution of offense types from that table to the 2024 BOP population).
  • U.S. Marshals Service provided its most recent estimated population count (60,439) in a February 2023 response to our FOIA request , reporting the projected average daily population for fiscal year 2023. The same response also provided a more detailed breakdown of this population by facility and offense type. The numbers of people held in federal detention centers (9,445), in directly-contracted private facilities (6,731), in non-paid facilities (17), and in all state, local, and indirectly-contracted (“pass thru”) facilities with Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGAs) combined (44,246) came from the FOIA response. To determine how many people held in facilities with IGAs were held in local jails specifically (33,900, which includes an unknown portion of indirectly-contracted “pass thru” jails), we turned to Table 8 Jail Inmates in 2021 — Statistical Tables Table 8, reporting data as of June 30, 2021. The remainder of those in IGAs (10,346) were held in state facilities and other indirectly-contracted (“pass thru”) facilities (most of which are private), but the available data make it impossible to disaggregate those two groups. We created our own estimated offense breakdown by applying the ratios of reported offense types (excluding the vague “other new offense” and “writs, holds & transfers” categories”) to the total average daily population in 2023. (For those interested in the raw data including those categories, see page 9 of the 2023 FOIA response .) ⤴
  • Youth: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (EZACJRP), reporting total population and facility data for October 27, 2021. Our data on youth incarcerated in adult prisons comes from Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 15, reporting data for December 31, 2022, and youth in adult jails from Jail Inmates in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 2, reporting data for the last weekday in June 2022. The number of youth reported in Indian Country facilities comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Jails in Indian Country, 2022 Table 6, also reporting data for the last weekday in June, 2022. For more information on the geography of the juvenile system, see the No Kids in Prison campaign .
  • Immigration detention: The average daily population of 38,182 in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention comes from ICE’s FY 2024 ICE Statistics spreadsheet as of January 12, 2024. The count of 8,042 youth in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody comes from the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program Fact Sheet , reporting the population as of January 19, 2024. Our estimates of how many ICE detainees are held in federal, private, and local facilities come from our analysis of the same ICE FY 2024 ICE Statistics Spreadsheet. Ten percent were in federal ICE/BOP facilities (which we defined as Service Processing Centers, Staging facilities, and BOP detention centers); 78% in private contract facilities (including Contract Detention Facilities for ICE and U.S. Marshals Service and Dedicated Intergovernmental Service Agreements); and 11% in city and county-operated jails (including Intergovernmental Service Agreements for ICE and U.S. Marshals Service).
  • State psychiatric hospitals (people committed to state psychiatric hospitals by courts after being found “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) or, in some states, “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) and others held for pretrial evaluation or for treatment as “incompetent to stand trial” (IST)): The total number (18,948) is from the Treatment Advocacy Center’s 2024 report Prevention over Punishment , reporting findings from their 2023 survey. In past years, we used an older source that offered a breakdown by the status of these “forensic” patients; the TAC report does not provide such a breakdown. Also, it’s important to note that this is not a complete view of all involuntary commitments, many of which have nothing to do with underlying criminal charges or convictions.
  • Civil detention and commitment: (At least 20 states and the federal government operate facilities for the purposes of detaining people convicted of sex-related crimes after their sentences are complete. These facilities and the confinement there are technically civil, but in reality are quite like prisons. People under civil commitment are held in custody continuously from the time they start serving their sentence at a correctional facility through their confinement in the civil facility.) The civil commitment counts come from an annual survey conducted by the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Programs Network shared by SOCCPN President Shan Jumper. Counts for most states are from the 2023 survey, but for states that did not participate in 2023, we included the most recent figures available: California’s count is as of 2022; Nebraska’s is from 2018; South Carolina’s is from 2021; and the federal Bureau of Prisons’ count is from 2017.
  • Territorial prisons (correctional facilities in the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and U.S. Commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico): Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 25, reporting data for December 31, 2022.
  • Indian country jails (correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs): Jails in Indian Country, 2022 Table 1, reporting the population as of the last weekday in June, 2022.
  • Military: Prisoners in 2021 — Statistical Tables Tables 23 (for total population) and 24 (for offense types) reporting data as of December 31, 2021. ⤴
  • Probation and parole: Our counts of the number of people on probation and parole are based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Correctional Populations in the United States, 2021 — Statistical Tables Table 1, reporting data for December 31, 2021. We adjusted these totals to ensure that people with multiple statuses (e.g., people on probation who were also held in jails) were counted only once in their most restrictive category, using published data on people with dual statuses in Table 11 of the same report. Because the incarcerated population grew significantly between 2021 and 2022, and we know of no reason that the probation and parole populations wouldn’t have grown at similar rates, we then calculated updated estimates for these categories based on their proportions to one another in 2021 (34% incarcerated, 52% on probation, and 14% on parole). We applied those percentages to our updated total number incarcerated to estimate roughly 2,991,000 on probation and 798,000 on parole in 2022. For readers interested in knowing the total number of people on parole and probation, ignoring any double-counting with other forms of correctional control, there were 803,200 people on parole and 2,963,000 people on probation as of December 31, 2021. (A 2022 update of these numbers is anticipated from the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the first quarter of 2024, but this was not published as of this report’s publication date.) ⤴
  • For state prisons, the number of people in private prisons came from Table 14 in Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables .
  • For the Federal Bureau of Prisons, we calculated the percentage of the total BOP population (9%) that were held in Residential Reentry Centers (halfway houses) or in home confinement as of January 18, 2024, according to the Bureau of Prisons “ Population Statistics .” We then applied that percentage to our total convicted BOP population (removing the 9,445 people held in 12 BOP detention centers being held for the U.S. Marshals Service) to estimate the number of people serving a sentence in a privately-operated setting for the BOP. We chose this method instead of using the number published in Table 14 of Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables because as of 2023, the BOP no longer places sentenced people in private prisons. The inclusion of Residential Reentry Centers and home confinement in our definition of “private” facilities is consistent with the definition used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Table 14 of Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables .
  • For the U.S. Marshals Service, we used the 2023 FOIA response reporting the projected average daily population for fiscal year 2023 as of February 12, 2023, including only those held in “private” (directly contracted) facilities. However, we note that an unknown portion of the 14,752 people held in indirectly-contracted (“pass thru”) facilities with Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGAs) are also held in private facilities; the available data make it impossible to disaggregate these “pass thru” facilities according to status as private or public.
  • For youth, we used the 2021 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement , which provides a breakdown of the number of youth held in publicly and privately operated facilities.
  • For immigration detention, we used the Facility Information provided in ICE’s FY 2024 ICE Statistics spreadsheet to calculate the number of people detained in facilities categorized as “CDF” (Contract Detention Facilities), “USMS CDF” (Contract Detention Facilities contracted by the U.S. Marshals Service), and “DIGSA” (privately owned and/or operated facilities contracted through Dedicated Intergovernmental Service Agreements for ICE use). ⤴

Adjustments to avoid double counting

To avoid counting anyone twice, we performed the following adjustments:

  • To avoid anyone in immigration detention being counted twice, we removed the 11% (4,383) of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained population that is held in local jails under Intergovernmental Service Agreement contracts (IGSAs) from the total jail population. We removed 23.2% of these ICE detainees from the jail convicted population and the balance from the unconvicted population. We based these percentages on the breakdown by criminal status of the ICE “currently detained” population as of January 12, 2024 in the ICE Detention Statistics spreadsheet, counting “convicted criminal” as convicted and “pending criminal charges” and “other immigration violator” as unconvicted.
  • To avoid anyone in local jails on behalf of state or federal prison authorities from being counted twice, we removed the 65,573 people — reported in Table 14 of Prisoners in 2022 — Statistical Tables — confined in local jails on behalf of federal or state prison systems from the total jail population and from the numbers we calculated for those in local jails that are convicted. To avoid those being held by the U.S. Marshals Service from being counted twice, we removed from the jail total 32,300 Marshals detainees reported as held in local jails in Jail Inmates in 2022 — Statistical Tables Table 8. We removed 75.9% of these people held in jails for the Marshals Service from the jail convicted population, and the balance from the unconvicted jail population. We based these percentages on our analysis of the Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002 . We are not aware of any more recent source breaking down the U.S. Marshals Service detained population by conviction status.
  • Because we removed ICE detainees and people under the jurisdiction of federal and state authorities from the jail population, we had to recalculate the offense distribution reported in Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002 who were “convicted” or “not convicted,” excluding the people who reported that they were being held on behalf of state authorities, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Our definition of “convicted” was those who reported that they were “To serve a sentence in this jail,” “To await sentencing for an offense,” or “To await transfer to serve a sentence somewhere else.” Our definition of “not convicted” was “To stand trial for an offense,” “To await arraignment,” or “To await hearing for revocation of probation/parole or community release.”
  • For our analysis of people held in private jails for local authorities, we applied the percentage of the total custody population held in private facilities in midyear 2019 (calculated from Table 20 of Census of Jails, 2005-2019 ) to our count of people held in jails for local authorities (550,244) in 2022, after making the adjustments described in this section. ⤴
  • Our graph of the racial and ethnic disparities in correctional facilities (as shown in Slideshow 6) uses the only data source that has data for all types of adult correctional facilities: the U.S. Census. We used the American Community Survey 2022 1-Year Estimates table S2603 and represented the four named racial and ethnic groups that account for at least 2%, nationally, of the population in adult correctional facilities. Not included on the graphic are Asian people, who make up 0.9% of the correctional population, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, who make up 0.3%, people reporting “Some other race,” who account for 7%, and those of “Two or more races,” who make up 12.4% of the total national correctional population.
  • Note that because Latinos may be of any race and because of how the Census Bureau published race and ethnicity data in the relevant table, we used the Census data for “White alone, Not Hispanic or Latino” for white people, but the Census Bureau’s data for “Black or African American” and “American Indian and Alaska Native” people may include people who identify as both that race and Latino. ⤴

Read the detailed methodology

How to link to specific images and sections

To help readers link to specific images in this report, we created these special urls:

To help readers link to specific report sections or paragraphs, we created these special urls:

Learn how to link to specific images and sections

Acknowledgments

All Prison Policy Initiative reports are collaborative endeavors, but this report builds on the successful collaborations of the several versions of this report we have produced since 2014. For this year’s report, the authors are particularly indebted to Shan Jumper for sharing updated civil detention and commitment data, Brian Nam-Sonenstein and Emily Widra for research and editing support, and Ed Epping for help with one of the visuals. However, any errors or omissions, and final responsibility for all of the many value judgements required to produce a data visualization like this, are the sole responsibility of the authors.

We thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Safety and Justice Challenge for their support of our research into the use and misuse of jails in this country. We also thank Public Welfare Foundation for their support of our reports that fill key data and messaging gaps. Finally, we’d like to thank each of our individual donors — your commitment to ending mass incarceration makes our work possible.

About the authors

Wendy Sawyer is the Research Director at the Prison Policy Initiative. Along with directing the organization’s research priorities, Wendy is the author (or co-author) of several major reports, including Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, Beyond the Count: A deep dive into state prison populations, All Profit, No Risk: How the bail industry exploits the justice system and Arrest, Release, Repeat: How police and jails are misused to respond to social problems . Wendy also frequently publishes briefings on recent data releases, academic research, women’s incarceration, pretrial detention, probation, and more.

Peter Wagner is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Prison Policy Initiative. He co-founded the Prison Policy Initiative in 2001 in order to spark a national discussion about mass incarceration.

About the Prison Policy Initiative

The non-profit, non-partisan Prison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader harm of mass criminalization and spark advocacy campaigns to create a more just society. Alongside reports like this that help the public more fully engage in criminal legal system reform , the organization leads the nation’s fight to keep the prison system from exerting undue influence on the political process (a.k.a. prison gerrymandering ) and has helped to protect the families of incarcerated people from the predatory prison and jail telephone industry and the video visitation industry .

The number of state facilities is from the Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2019 (the private adult facilities are also included in this number); the number of federal facilities is from the list of prison locations on the Bureau of Prisons website (as of January 11, 2024); the number of youth facilities is from the Juvenile Residential Facility Census Databook (2020); the number of jails from Census of Jails 2005-2019 (counting facilities, not jurisdictions); the number of immigration detention facilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Dedicated and Non Dedicated Facility List (as of January 2, 2024); and the number of Indian Country jails from Jails in Indian Country, 2022 . In addition to these larger systems of confinement, people are incarcerated in 41 prisons in U.S. territories, according to the World Prison Brief (accessed January 24, 2024), and in 36 military prisons, according to a December 2022 GAO report to Congressional Committees (page 5). We aren’t currently aware of a good source of data on the number of facilities that hold people involuntarily committed to civil commitment centers or psychiatric facilities due to underlying criminal charges or convictions.  ↩

This is undoubtedly a low estimate, as it does not capture the costs of all facilities included in this “whole pie,” and there are several significant types of expenses for which we could not create reliable national estimates, such as fines and fees. Moreover, many costs, such as those related to correctional health care, have also increased since we published the report. For more information including our methodology for calculating the $182 billion figure, see our 2017 report Following the Money of Mass Incarceration .  ↩

This is not the only lens through which we should think about mass incarceration, of course. For instance, while this view of the data shows clearly which government agencies are most central to mass incarceration and which criminalized behaviors (or “offenses”) result in the most incarceration on a given day, at least some of the same data could instead be presented to emphasize the well-documented racial and economic disparities that characterize mass incarceration. It would be impossible to present all possible “views” of mass incarceration in one report, but we encourage readers to take inspiration from our approach here to create further “big picture” analyses that can help people better understand mass incarceration, its harms, and how to end it.  ↩

The number of annual jail admissions includes multiple admissions of some individuals; it does not mean 7 million unique individuals cycling through jails in a year. In a presentation, The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail Population Growth [PowerPoint] given at The Jail Reentry Roundtable, Bureau of Justice Statistics statistician Allen Beck estimated that of the 12-12.6 million jail admissions in 2004-2005, 9 million were unique individuals. More recently, we analyzed the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health , which includes questions about whether respondents have been booked into jail; from this source, we estimated that of the 10.6 million jail admissions in 2017, at least 4.9 million were unique individuals .  ↩

Prison and jail admissions were dramatically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic . State and federal prison admissions dropped 40% in the first year of the pandemic (2020), and by June 2021, jail admissions were down 33% compared to the 12 months ending in June 2019. Before 2020, the number of annual jail admissions was consistently 10 million or more . Because these declines were not generally due to permanent policy changes, we expect that the number of prison and jail admissions will return to pre-pandemic levels as cases that were delayed for pandemic-related reasons work their way through the court system.  ↩

The local jail population in the main pie chart (550,244) reflects only the population under local jurisdiction; it excludes the people being held in jails for other state and federal agencies. The population under local jurisdiction is smaller than the population (652,500) physically located in jails on an average day in 2022, often called the custody population. (For this distinction, see the second image in the first slideshow above.)  ↩

The federal government defines the hierarchy of offenses with felonies higher than misdemeanors. And “[w]ithin these levels, … the hierarchy from most to least serious is as follows: homicide, rape/other sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/motor vehicle theft, fraud, drug trafficking, drug possession, weapons offense, driving under the influence, other public-order, and other.” See page 13 of Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 .  ↩

The felony murder rule has also been applied when the person who died was a participant in the crime. For example, in some jurisdictions, if one of the bank robbers is killed by the police during a chase, the surviving bank robbers can be convicted of felony murder of their colleague. For example, see People v. Hudson , 222 Ill. 2d 392 (Ill. 2006) and People v. Klebanowski , 221 Ill. 2d 538 (Ill. 2006). According to a New York Times article , the U.S. is currently the only country still using the felony murder rule; other British common law countries abolished it years ago. A small but growing number of states have abolished it at the state level.  ↩

For an explanation of how we calculated this, see “private facilities” in the Methodology . For those interested in how many facilities are privately operated, in 2019 (the most recent year for which we have data) only 445 (9%) of the 4,793 prisons and jails in the U.S. were privately operated.  ↩

At yearend 2022 , five states held more than 20% of those incarcerated under the state prison system’s jurisdiction in local jail facilities: Louisiana (53%), Kentucky (47%), Mississippi (33%), Utah (26%), and Tennessee (20%). For more on how renting jail space to other agencies skews priorities and fuels jail expansion, see the second part of our report Era of Mass Expansion .  ↩

According to the most recent National Correctional Industries Association survey that is publicly available, an average of 6% of all people incarcerated in state prisons work in state-owned prison industries. However, the portion of incarcerated people working in these jobs ranges from 1% (in Connecticut) to 18% (in Minnesota). For a description of other kinds of prison work assignments, see our 2017 analysis .  ↩

In 2022, a report by the ACLU and the University of Chicago Law School Global Human Rights Clinic found that very little has changed since then: Using a similar methodology, they found that prisons paid incarcerated workers a minimum average hourly wage of 13 cents and a maximum of 52 cents.  ↩

In 2020, there were 1,155,610 drug arrests in the U.S., the vast majority of which (86.7%) were for drug possession or use rather than for sale or manufacturing. See Crime in the United States Annual Reports, 2020, “Persons Arrested” Table 29 and the Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations table (available for download here ). In 2021, the FBI (which aggregates these data from local law enforcement agencies) began requiring all agencies to report data using the NIBRS system, and no longer accepted reporting through the Unified Crime Reporting program. While this switch was planned years in advance, this resulted in “ a massive gap in information ,” as almost 40% of agencies submitted no data in 2021, including those in large cities like New York and Los Angeles. Therefore, crime and arrest data from 2021 are less reliable than past years. For that reason, we caution against relying on the national arrest data from 2021. In 2022, the FBI accepted data through both the old and new systems, so 2022 data cover more jurisdictions than 2021; still, in 10 states (including large states like Florida, Illinois, and Georgia) less than 60% of law enforcement agencies submitted data.  ↩

Despite this evidence, people convicted of violent offenses often face decades of incarceration, and those convicted of sexual offenses can be committed to indefinite confinement or stigmatized by sex offender registries long after completing their sentences.  ↩

Using the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer , we estimated 2023 data based on the reported percent change in crime rates between the first nine months of 2022 and the first nine months of 2023 and found significant decreases in violent crime (8.2%), property crime (6.3%) and all Index crime (6.6%). However, 2023 data should be considered preliminary until annual crime data are reported later this year.  ↩

In 14 states, the prison population grew by 5% or more in 2022 , with just nine states (mostly in the South) and the federal Bureau of Prisons accounting for 91% of all prison growth nationwide. Local jail populations grew at an even faster pace than prisons in 2022; jails held 4% more people at the end of June 2022 than at the end of June 2021. In both cases, these increases were driven by changes in admissions more than anything else.  ↩

Prison populations were the lowest they’d been in decades during the first years of the pandemic, but not because officials released more people (in fact, they released fewer than before the pandemic ). In reality, prison admissions fell sharply: there were 40% fewer admissions in 2020 and 27% fewer in 2021 than in 2019 due to declines in most types of crime, court delays, and temporary suspensions of transfers from local jails. Releases were the rare exception, not the rule. Even parole boards failed to use their existing authority to release more parole-eligible people.  ↩

The linked 2022 study found that a smaller portion of cities with “progressive” prosecutors saw increases in homicides compared to cities with “traditional” prosecutors (56% versus 68%) between 2015 and 2019, and the relative increase in homicides was lower in places with “progressive” prosecutors than those with “traditional” prosecutors (43% versus 55%). Another study by the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the Legal Defense Fund found no significant difference in pandemic-era increases in homicides between cities with “progressive” versus “traditional” prosecutors.  ↩

Although they’ve failed to deter crime, long sentences have accomplished a barbaric rise in the incarceration of elderly people . Older people make up five times as much of the prison population as they did three decades ago: from 3% of the prison population in 1991 to 15% in 2021. This growth is seen even more acutely when looking at people serving life sentences: by 2020, 30% of people serving life sentences were at least 55 years old, with more than 61,400 older adults sentenced to die in prison.  ↩

In its Defining Violence report , the Justice Policy Institute cites earlier surveys that found similar preferences. These include the 1997 Iowa Crime Victimization Survey , in which burglary victims “voiced stronger support for approaches that rely less on incarceration, such as community service (75.7%), regular probation (68.6%), treatment and rehabilitation (53.5%), and intensive probation (43.7%)” and the 2013 first-ever Survey of California Crime Victims and Survivors , in which “seven in 10 victims supported directing resources to crime prevention versus towards incarceration (a five-to-one margin).” In a 2019 update to that survey, 75% of victims “support reducing prison terms by 20% for people in prison that are a low risk to public safety and do not have life sentences” and using the savings to fund crime prevention and rehabilitation.  ↩

Many people convicted of violent offenses have been chronically exposed to neighborhood and interpersonal violence or trauma as children and into adulthood. As the Square One Project explains , “Rather than violence being a behavioral tendency among a guilty few who harm the innocent, people convicted of violent crimes have lived in social contexts in which violence is likely. Often growing up in poor communities in which rates of street crime are high, and in chaotic homes which can be risky settings for children, justice-involved people can be swept into violence as victims and witnesses. From this perspective, the violent offender may have caused serious harm, but is likely to have suffered serious harm as well.” Our report Reforms Without Results summarizes research findings that bear this out.  ↩

Prisons are also entirely failing to provide people with adequate treatment . 43% of people in state prisons have a diagnosed mental disorder, yet at any given time, only an estimated 6% of people in state prisons are receiving professional help. And while half of people in state prisons had a substance use disorder in the year before their admission to prison, only 10% report having received any clinical treatment while incarcerated.  ↩

Even the most common parole and probation conditions are often stifling for those reentering society. In many states, for example, “association restrictions” prohibit interactions between people on supervision and large swaths of the population, such as those with felony convictions or others on probation or parole. As a result, people must steer clear of certain places altogether, producing a complex web of prohibited activities and relationships that make it even harder to find housing and work, arrange for transportation, participate in treatment programs, or otherwise succeed in reentry.  ↩

A Community Spring program known as Just Income, which is led by formerly incarcerated people, offers a new way to understand these experiences through a simulator they designed called “ReEntry: A Look at the Journey Back to Life.”  ↩

According to the most recent data available — Appendix Table 7 in the Bureau of Justice Statistics report Probation and Parole in the United States, 2021 — 73,310 adults exited probation to incarceration under their current sentence; Appendix Table 11 shows 54,572 adults were returned to incarceration from parole with a revocation. The number of people incarcerated for non-criminal violations may be much higher, however, since almost 35,000 people exiting probation and parole to incarceration did so for “other/unknown” reasons.  ↩

Electronic monitoring restricts people’s ability to leave their homes, subjecting them to extremely long and complicated approval processes for job interviews and denying them the flexibility required to work in food service, waste management, construction, and other industries. They are frequently denied permission to go to the doctor or the pharmacy to fill prescriptions. A survey of people subjected to monitoring by ICE found that an astonishing 90% of people on electronic monitoring experienced harm to their physical health, including open sores and even electrical shocks. Many people report depressive and even suicidal thoughts from the stigma and isolation of wearing a monitor. To make matters worse, the technology can trigger relapse for those managing addiction, potentially leading to new offenses, overdose, and even death. Families and, overwhelmingly, Black and Brown communities endure these harms alongside the people on electronic monitoring, as the practice impedes participation in childcare, key family events such as child birth or funerals. Some have also noted the technology has been deployed to undermine participation in social justice movements.  ↩

While some of this expansion has taken place in reaction to the pandemic, the Vera Institute of Justice also notes that evolving technology is driving increasing electronic monitoring usage. Their report points out that the use of GPS devices increased thirty-fold between 2005 and 2021. Advancing technology has also increased the use of programs like cell phone apps designed to track and monitor people under supervision, which has allowed for rapid expansion of electronic monitoring and raised new areas of concern, such as the potential for highly personal data to be shared and compromised.  ↩

For example, in Los Angeles County between 2015 and 2021, 94% of people on EM who did not successfully complete electronic monitoring were sent back to jail for technical violations rather than for a new arrest.  ↩

A medical journal article also includes in this group people with developmental disabilities, dementia, and other forms of cognitive impairment.  ↩

In 2021 , more than half (58%) of juvenile status offense cases were for truancy. Twelve percent were for running away, 9% were for being “ungovernable,” 11% were for underage liquor law violations, and 4% were for breaking curfew (the remaining 7% were petitioned for “miscellaneous” offenses).  ↩

As of 2016, nearly 9 out of 10 people incarcerated for immigration offenses by the Federal Bureau of Prisons were there for illegal entry and reentry. We know of no newer source of detailed information about these offenses.  ↩

People detained by ICE because they are facing “removal proceedings” and “removal” include longtime permanent residents, authorized foreign workers, and students, as well as those who have crossed U.S. borders.  ↩

It’s worth noting that the significant drop in immigration detention during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic was not the result of reforms; it had more to do with litigation and court orders that forced some releases, the use of public health law Title 42 to shut asylum seekers out at the border, and pandemic-related staffing issues at both ICE and Customs and Border Patrol .  ↩

This program imposes electronic monitoring — whether through GPS ankle monitor, a mobile phone-based app, or other new technologies — on individuals with little or no criminal history, and has expanded from 23,000 people under active surveillance in 2014 to more than 293,000 people in February of 2023. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) provides frequently-updated data and analysis on this program, and many other aspects of immigration detention.  ↩

Most children in ORR custody are held in shelters. A small number are in secure juvenile facilities or in short-term or long-term foster care. With the exception of those in foster homes, these children are not free to come and go, and they do not participate in community life (e.g. they do not attend community schools). Their behaviors and interactions are monitored and recorded; any information gathered about them in ORR custody can be used against them later in immigration proceedings. And while the majority of these children came to the U.S. without a parent or legal guardian, those who were separated from parents at the border are, like ICE detainees, confined only because the U.S. has criminalized unauthorized immigration, even by persons lawfully seeking asylum.  ↩

People committed to state psychiatric facilities in the course of criminal legal proceedings are typically called “forensic” patients. Forensic patients are just one portion of the total number of people civilly committed or detained in psychiatric facilities on a given day; according to a recent Treatment Advocacy Center report , forensic patients occupied more than half (52%) of available state psychiatric beds nationwide in 2023. Government agencies do not publish accessible, transparent data on the fuller picture of civil commitments (i.e., outside of those charged or convicted of criminal offenses), as the authors of this 2020 report helpfully detail.  ↩

“Civil commitment” has a specific, somewhat euphemistic, meaning in the criminal legal context, but is used much more broadly outside of that context. Here, “civil commitment” refers to the involuntary commitment of people convicted of sex-related crimes after completing their prison sentences. While this is not part of their sentences (and therefore “civil”), these individuals are unquestionably there because of their criminal convictions. For more information, see our 2023 briefing What is civil commitment?  ↩

The Treatment Advocacy Center reports that “[Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity] patients also sometimes remain in the hospital years longer than they would have been held in prison for the same crime if they did not have a mental illness. … [I]n our survey, Tennessee and Wisconsin said explicitly that NGRI patients often stay in the state hospitals for life.”  ↩

While we have yet to find a national estimate of how many people are civilly committed in prisons, jails, or other facilities for involuntary drug treatment on a given day, and therefore cannot include them in our “whole pie” snapshot of confined populations, Massachusetts reportedly commits over 6,000 people each year under its provision, Section 35. According to Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, “Due to insufficient capacity at treatment facilities, 3 out of 4 Section 35 beds are in correctional facilities .”  ↩

Our report on the pre-incarceration incomes of those imprisoned in state prisons, Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned , found that, in 2014 dollars, incarcerated people had a median annual income that is 41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages. Our analysis of similar jail data in Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time found that people in jail have even lower incomes, with a median annual income that is 54% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages.  ↩

Even outside of prisons and jails, the elaborate system of criminal legal system fines and fees feeds a cycle of poverty and punishment for many poor Americans.  ↩

The data we collected in 12 state-specific reports emphasized what we already know: Communities missing the most residents to incarceration are often disproportionately low-income, communities of color, under-resourced and overpoliced. For example, in Los Angeles, the 14 neighborhoods with the highest imprisonment rates are all clustered in South Central Los Angeles — a predominately Black and Latino region of the city with a median income far below the city average.  ↩

This is the most recent data available until the Bureau of Justice Statistics begins administering the next Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, last scheduled for 2024 (the status of this survey is uncertain as of this publication date).  ↩

See all the footnotes

Recommended Reading:

essay of criminal justice system

Incarceration rates for 50 states and 170 countries

essay of criminal justice system

Who profits and who pays in the U.S. criminal justice system?

essay of criminal justice system

Detailed charts and facts about incarceration in every state

essay of criminal justice system

Dive deep into the lives and experiences of people in prison

Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems Essay

Introduction, technology in the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is a system in government involved with practices, whose intentions are to minimize crimes and disciplining those who violate the laws. It ensures that people are socially controlled, with laws enforced. To maintain this many personnel are involved in the system, among which are police, magistrates, attorneys, and other related agents like courts, prisons, jails among others. For the effectiveness of the system in its operation, the system has well set and organized procedures on how to arrest the criminals, how to detect if guilty or innocent, and the procedures required in order to punish those found guilty.

In the United States, a policy was made in 1967 about the Law Enforcement and Justice Administration by the president’s commission, and the aim of the policy was to stop crimes in society. In the criminal justice system, the various agencies are connected by a rule, and they have different tasks, but all are aimed at maintaining law and stopping crimes without a specific method on how to attain this. The police use legal coercion to enhance maintains of law and order. They usually arrest people who go against the law. The offenders are judged in the court of law to determine if guilty or not guilty. Then, if guilty, they are punished according to the crime committed, and among the punishments include being put in exile, jails, or prisons. It’s through giving these punishments that the criminal justice system ensures that the offenders are punished because of their bad behaviors and this ensures that citizens keeping and going up to the law orders, a factor that ensures good relationships among citizens in any given society.

The introduction of technology in the criminal justice system has enabled an interpersonal communication transformation. The technology has involved various inventions of new operation methods. Among these is the introduction of the technology in testing drugs. This has been enabled because it is believed that most commuted crimes are a result of drug usage. Among the drugs tested in the United States are cocaine and marijuana, and the common methods and procedures used in testing drugs are bioassays, hair tester, and sweat partners among others.

Technology has also enhanced the detention of hidden weapons that are dangerous, as well as enabling the use of electronic monitors to keep surveillance throughout that ensuring that criminal behaviors are minimized.

The use of Databases in DNA analysis has enabled the testing of DNA easily. DNA is used in the comparison of biological genes between two people. This DNA is not being used in the jurisdiction to provide DNA evidence (Cole & Smith, 2004, P.4)

With the use of electronic monitoring, an individual can be detected in a given place and can enhance restricting of an individual from various places which the suspects are not intended to go. It’s also through the suspects can be surveilled thus ensuring his movements are not only restricted but also tracked.

Stun guns and patrol car video surveillance have been introduced in the criminal justice system as a result of new technology in the criminal justice system. This has been of great use in both law enforcement, and criminal behavior monitoring. However, stun guns have been challenging ethical matters, compared to the patrol car video surveillance in controlling criminal behaviors. This is because when using stun guns, it’s always advised not to hide them and to always ensure it’s ready. The stun gun works by producing an electric charge in the body of the person who has been shot.

According to my, it’s good to have both stun guns and patrol car video surveillance because they ensure that criminal behaviors are reduced thus enforcing the law. The stun guns have an added advantage in that it’s a small weapon, thus easy to carry and its effects on the offender’s body is of short duration, thus causing less damage to the offender’s body. This enhances that the offender is punished, but not completely killed which promotes ethics in society.

Advantages of Technology in the criminal justice system

In the criminal justice system, many methods have come to use after the development of technology. These methods have been of great use in the criminal justice system, and have facilitated a lot in law enforcement and reducing criminal behaviors. The use of electronic monitoring has been of great importance, among these is the reduction of prison population because the method of monitoring can restrict and monitor the offenders’ movement, restricting the offender to a given place. This has lead to the reduced need for prisons, thus reduced costs in the construction of prisons.

The Databases that have been used to Analyze DNA profiles have helped in solving criminal cases associated with paternity, and this has enabled more standard results. The technology associated with detecting hidden weapons has facilitated the tracking of suspected offenders and the ownership of illegal arms. Drug testers have been used in airports and other institutions to test the possibility of a suspected to have used illegal drugs, which are connected to criminal behavior, thus enabling the control of crimes and thus enforcing the law. The patrol car video surveillance has been of great use in monitoring the suspect’s movements and their easy tracking. The patrol cars can easily arrest suspects a factor that ensures that crimes are controlled and the law followed.

Disadvantages of technology in the criminal justice system

Technology has brought a negative impact on the criminal justice system as well as in society. The technology has denied the individual ability to control crime and has not been considering democratic values. This is in cases where the machines are feed with information and they are expected to give results. The technology has also higher financial requirements either in the installation or in the management of the equipment, a factor that has brought a societal influence. An example of this is the DNA analyzers which are expensive to purchase, and brings about bioethical issues.

The electronics used in monitoring tends to be very lenient with offenders as compared to personal reaction towards offenders thus becoming a challenge in the criminal justice system, and at the same time, the electronics can not give full restrain to offenders because they do not have the ability to restrain him or her physically. By the time one puts the electronic intervention, the crime can have taken place thus becoming ineffective.

As per my views, I think technology has contributed a lot to law enforcement and the control of criminal behaviors. For example, the DNA analyzer which helps in sorting crimes associated with paternity can help tell who is related to who, thus ensuring that the offender is known and punished accordingly. This serves as a base to prevent future similar cases and as a result, the crimes are controlled and this gives good relationships in the society people live in.

Cole, F., & Smith, E., (2004).Criminal Justice in America, United States: Thomson Wadsworth, Page 4.

Pattavina, A., (2005).Information Technology in Criminal Justice System, New York: SAGE, Page 18.

Siegel, J., (2006).Criminology, Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, Page 510.

Siegel, J., &Senna, J., (2005).Introduction to Criminal Justice, Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, Page 526.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 9). Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-technology-in-criminal-justice-systems/

"Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems." IvyPanda , 9 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-technology-in-criminal-justice-systems/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems'. 9 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems." March 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-technology-in-criminal-justice-systems/.

1. IvyPanda . "Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems." March 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-technology-in-criminal-justice-systems/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems." March 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-technology-in-criminal-justice-systems/.

  • The Fontenot v. Taser International Lawsuit Decision
  • Political Sciences: Gun Control Laws
  • Use of Trasers in Law
  • Administrative Power and an Unconscionable Driver
  • United States Department of Justice
  • Patrol Allocation and Distribution
  • Decisions on Patrol Distribution by Region
  • Florida Highway Patrol's Compensation Program
  • Patrol Officers Role in Responding to Cybercrime
  • Patrol Procedures: Technology
  • Criminal Sentencing: Term Definition
  • Police Investigative Questioning and Techniques
  • Granite City Building Inspectors: Service Crime
  • Fingerprint Identification Analysis
  • The Vision in “Blind” Justice Theory Analysis
  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Landmark Reduced Sentencing Law

The justices sided with the government in a case focused on who is eligible for shorter prison sentences under the bipartisan First Step Act passed in 2018.

The top of the Supreme Court is illuminated at sunset.

By Abbie VanSickle

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court sided with the government on Friday, narrowly interpreting a provision of a landmark criminal justice law in a decision likely to limit the number of federal prisoners who are eligible for reduced sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

The decision , by a vote of 6 to 3, did not split along ideological lines. The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that a criminal defendant must meet a series of criminal history conditions to qualify for relief. A failure to meet any of the criteria, she wrote, would render a prisoner ineligible.

The case focused on who is eligible for shorter prison sentences under the First Step Act, bipartisan legislation passed in 2018 to address the human and financial costs of the country’s booming prison population.

Under a provision known as the “safety valve,” judges can disregard federal mandatory minimum sentences for people with limited criminal history convicted of certain nonviolent drug offenses.

The law lists three types of criminal history among its criteria for eligibility. The justices were asked to decide whether just one type of criminal history disqualifies a person from a lighter sentence, or whether all three must be present for a disqualification.

Like the arguments, which were focused on grammar — basically, what does “and” mean in a list — Justice Kagan’s opinion adopted the tone of an English teacher. The opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, was peppered with examples of sentence structure, pulling from childhood classics.

“Consider this perhaps half-remembered line from childhood: ‘On Saturday he ate through one piece of chocolate cake, one ice cream cone, one pickle, one slice of Swiss cheese, one slice of salami, one lollipop, one piece of cherry pie, one sausage, one cupcake and one slice of watermelon,’” Justice Kagan wrote, citing the book “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.”

The use of the word “and” meant that the caterpillar ate each one of the foods, she wrote.

In dissent, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized the purpose of the First Step Act. The legislation, he wrote, promised to give “more individuals the chance to avoid one-size-fits-all mandatory minimums and receive instead sentences that account for their particular circumstances and crimes.”

The case, Pulsifer v. United States , No. 22-340, involved Mark E. Pulsifer, who had been accused of twice selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in southwest Iowa.

After a federal grand jury indicted him, he pleaded guilty to a single count of distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. He had a prior drug conviction from 2013 in the state for possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

Mr. Pulsifer’s lawyer had argued that his client was eligible for relief under the First Step Act unless he met all three criteria laid out in the law. The government argued that he was ineligible because he met one of the criteria.

In siding with the government, Justice Kagan gave example after example of uses of the word “and” to explain the court’s reasoning.

“Suppose a person says after visiting a bookstore, ‘I bought a novel, a memoir and a travel guide,’” Justice Kagan wrote.

“Ordinary people still understand the verb to carry over to all the books in the sentence,” she continued, adding that it was “just a more efficient way of saying ‘I bought a novel, bought a memoir and bought a travel guide.’”

She shared an example of a doctor dispensing medical advice: “A hospital tells you that it can perform a medical procedure only if you ‘don’t eat, drink and smoke for the preceding 12 hours.’”

Even Mr. Pulsifer’s lawyer agreed that “he would not feel free to have a steak and martini so long as he abstained from tobacco,” the justice wrote.

Although Mr. Pulsifer had argued that “Congress could have expressed its intent more clearly,” she added that “we do not demand (or in truth expect) that Congress draft in the most translucent way possible.”

She found that Mr. Pulsifer’s interpretation strained credibility and would lead to a reading of the law that made no sense.

“Pulsifer’s reading would negate one of three — indeed, the first of three — provisions in the very paragraph he is trying to interpret,” Justice Kagan wrote.

The majority dismissed the argument by Mr. Pulsifer that the court should broadly interpret the law because it was aimed at reducing prison sentences and lowering the number of people behind bars.

That was “a misguided argument about legislative purpose” that did “not assist in interpreting the statutory text before us,” Justice Kagan wrote.

In the dissent, Justice Gorsuch explained that in the 1980s and 1990s, Congress adopted a series of mandatory minimum prison sentences that led, in part, to a skyrocketing increase in the federal prison population in less than a decade. The First Step Act, he wrote, was Congress’s effort “to recalibrate its approach.”

“The dispute before us matters profoundly,” Justice Gorsuch added. “Our decision today thus promises to affect the lives and liberty of thousands of individuals.”

The dissent had none of the playful grammatical examples of the majority.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that the interpretation of “and” in the law meant the difference between incarceration and freedom for thousands.

“If this difference seems a small one, it is anything but,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Adopting the government’s preferred interpretation guarantees that thousands more people in the federal criminal justice system will be denied a chance — just a chance — at an individualized sentence.”

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting. More about Abbie VanSickle

The Self-Funding ‘Victim’ of the Criminal Justice System

David Trone, founder of the Total Wine chain, is trying to draw a contrast with his primary opponent, a former prosecutor, by saying he’s been caught up in the system. It was for business violations.

by Luke Goldstein

March 22, 2024

Goldstein-MD race 032224.jpg

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Rep. David Trone (D-MD) arrives at the U.S. Capitol, January 18, 2024.

When Larry Hogan announced his bid for Maryland’s U.S. Senate seat, it immediately turned the state into ground zero for the Democratic Party’s chances to hold onto its thin majority.

To replace retiring Sen. Ben Cardin, the party will now likely have to expend significant party resources to defeat a formidable former governor on the Republican side in what previously seemed like a safe blue seat. Early polling shows that Hogan starts with a double-digit lead over his potential challengers, who are far less well known statewide.

2024 Elections badge.jpg

This new political landscape has dramatically heightened the stakes for the May 14 Democratic primary, and magnified the differences between the two candidates, Rep. David Trone (D-MD) and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks.

What separates the two candidates has more to do with personal biography and factional endorsements than progressive versus moderate labels.

Trone is a wine mogul who runs the chain store Total Wine, dubbed the Amazon of alcohol retailers, and he has pumped an astronomical $34 million of his own personal fortune to self-fund his campaign. Outside of his own funding, Trone’s largest funder is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to which he’s been a longtime “minyan” donor.

In a surprising move, Trone joined the calls for a Gaza cease-fire fairly early on last fall, which many interpreted as an attempt to win favor with progressives. AIPAC did not rescind its endorsement but has not funded him since May of last year, according to campaign finance disclosures.

More from Luke Goldstein

Alsobrooks, on the other hand, has come up through the state ranks and is well known in her county. But she has faced an uphill battle against Trone’s ad blitz. Her campaign’s first ad of the election draws a contrast with Trone by portraying her as a working mother versus the average U.S. senator, who is “64 years old” and “worth $16 million.”

Both candidates are in their own way trying to claim the progressive mantle, as well as win over Black communities, which are crucial to the primary vote.

As a representative of a historically Black county, Alsobrooks has a leg up there, and she is touting her experience delivering on kitchen-table issues, mainly education and economic opportunity.

To drive a wedge between his opponent and Black voters, Trone has gone on the attack against Alsobrooks for her record as a state prosecutor, painting her as too tough on crime. Trone, in turn, is playing up his credentials as a criminal justice reformer, which he insists is a personal issue.

Yet Trone’s personal experience with the legal system is purely as a white-collar offender, which is not what most people associate with the failings of the criminal justice system.

EARLY ON IN THE RACE, TRONE’S COMPANY TOTAL WINE was embroiled in a lawsuit, since settled, due to its unwillingness to cooperate with the Federal Trade Commission regarding an ongoing investigation into alcohol distributor Southern Glazer’s. The nature of the pending antitrust lawsuit would inherently feature SouthernGlazer’s dealing with Total Wine, one of the largest distributors and retailers of alcohol.

Over the course of Total Wine’s history, Trone’s company routinely flouted state anti-monopoly laws protecting consumers and independent businesses from aggressive practices by big-box chains. Across several states, Total Wine was found guilty of breaking minimum-pricing laws, leading to fines of tens of thousands of dollars or the suspension of its liquor licenses.

In response to questions about his company’s track record and the tenuous connection to a broken criminal justice system, Trone’s campaign pointed to an incident back in the 1990s where state regulators went after him and his business.

The charges were related to a scheme Trone orchestrated in Pennsylvania to bypass state restrictions on the number of liquor stores one company could set up. He enlisted his wife, brother, and several friends to set up stores in their name instead, all of which would hire Trone’s own consultancy firm to actually run the business. It was effectively a clever accounting trick that drew the attention of the state. 

Trone attributes the prosecution to an overeager and corrupt state attorney general, Ernest Preate, who did later go to prison for other reasons. The case against Trone was dragged out and never led to a conviction. 

“David and members of his family were wrongfully arrested and prosecuted by a career politician,” the campaign said. “David knows he prevailed in court because he had the resources to prove his innocence in a criminal justice system too often stacked in favor of the white and the wealthy.”

The circumstances of the case are certainly mired by Preate’s dealings. But what’s clear is that after that run-in with the law, Total Wine pivoted its strategy. Trone discovered he could just as easily exert political influence to preemptively change state laws that were getting in the way of his business ambitions. He’s launched extensive lobbying campaigns to deregulate minimum pricing and other restrictions against big-box liquor stores and even backed legal efforts that went all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned Tennessee licensing rules.

“I’ve passed more laws than most politicians,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post in 2016 when he was running for Congress, regarding his lobbying prowess. “I sign my checks to buy access.”

His campaign seems to believe that these brushes with the law over his business practices make him relatable to Black voters, which strains credulity; in some sense, it’s not unlike the recent strategy that the Trump campaign has adopted to make inroads with Black communities.

“I got indicted a second time and a third time and a fourth time,” Trump said at a rally last month, “and a lot of people said that that’s why the Black people like me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against.”

Goldstein-MD race 032224 2.jpg

Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via AP Images

U. S. Senate candidate Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks speaks at a campaign event, February 18, 2024.

ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ACLU HAVE HELPED TRONE build up this reputation as a reformer over the years, dedicating their recidivism programs in his name after he gave a $15 million donation. “Trone’s initial involvement with the ACLU was born of personal experience,” its announcement read, followed by an exoneration of his legal difficulties with state authorities.

Trone’s most powerful backer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), echoed Trone’s credentials as a criminal justice advocate in his endorsement statement. Jeffries’s support for Trone points to the real schism in the race, which has less to do with ideology and more with a shadow battle between national and state Democratic Party interests.

The top Washington leadership in the House Democratic Caucus supports Trone, including Jeffries, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-CA), and Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA).

Meanwhile, Alsobrooks has drawn endorsements by high-profile members of the Maryland delegation, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen and former House Majority Leader and current Rep. Steny Hoyer, along with a host of state leaders whom she’s worked alongside. Most importantly, she’s won the support of Gov. Wes Moore, who is widely seen as a rising star in the party.

The underlying reasons for these battle lines are revealing.

Prior to Hogan’s entrance into the race, Trone’s main asset was as a self-funder who could save the DSCC vital resources. That was a major part of his initial appeal and even promoted by his own campaign, helping draw him endorsements.

“His deep pockets to finance a campaign is incredibly attractive to a national party … that’s his biggest advantage which has paid huge dividends,” said Todd Eberly, a political science professor at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

A day after Hogan’s announcement, though, Trone made a pointed statement that he couldn’t keep self-funding in the face of a strong challenger, indicating that he would need the party’s help eventually in the general election. “I just can’t write unlimited checks forever,” he told a reporter.

Trone’s other value is that he’s been a prolific fundraiser for the top brass of the Democratic Party since he entered office, winning him friends and influence. Once he announced a Senate run, those favors over the years earned him high-profile endorsements from House leadership.

According to filings compiled by Open Secrets, Trone has ponied up $1.3 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC, which works on behalf of party leadership and is now controlled by Jeffries. In 2023 alone, Trone contributed $250,000 to the PAC.

Trone has additionally maxed out individual contributions to an astounding number of Democratic members over the past two election cycles, earning him over 30 endorsements from colleagues.

The same pattern appears to be true for the state endorsements he’s racked up. Trone and his wife either individually or through his campaign contributed $57,000 to state and local officials who’ve now endorsed his Senate bid, most of which came in the past year, according to Follow the Money.

“Trone follows in a long line of wealthy self-funders who rise up through their seeming generosity outside of politics, and then continue moving money around while in politics to their own advantage,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project.

ALSOBROOKS CERTAINLY HAS SUPPORT FROM OTHER TOP MEMBERS of the party and national figures, but many of them are associated with the state of Maryland. She’s endorsed by county executives in neighboring counties, along with numerous members of the state Senate and House of Delegates.

According to her surrogates, Alsobrooks’s endorsements reflect her state colleagues’ belief in her ability, rather than fundraising prowess. “Angela has earned support across our delegation because we’ve witnessed her incredible leadership … and [she] provides a stark contrast to Larry Hogan,” said a spokesperson for Sen. Chris Van Hollen.

Her advocates argue that despite not being able to self-fund, Alsobrooks’s long-standing state and local ties might put her in a good position to defeat Hogan, who has his own state machine that he’s built from his time as governor.

That’s not to say that Alsobrooks’s support is immune from the favor-seeking of politics, but it’s not principally financial. In 2022, for example, Alsobrooks endorsed Wes Moore, who has now provided pivotal support for her Senate bid. The two have also worked together closely as state leaders on numerous public-works projects including the highly sought-after new FBI headquarters, creating jobs in Prince George’s County. This week’s congressional funding bill provides $200 million for the new headquarters in Greenbelt, Maryland.

In an official statement, Gov. Moore’s campaign team pointed to Alsobrooks’s ability to “deliver real results for Marylanders.”

Moore has some skin in the game too by siding with Alsobrooks over a formidable candidate like Trone backed by the national leadership. “If Alsobrooks wins it’d be a huge win for Moore and would indicate that the Maryland party establishment—led by Moore—still has significant pull,” said Eberly.

Hogan’s entrance has put a magnifying glass on which candidate would be more likely to win a general election. Trone has funding and national connections, while Alsobrooks is strapped up with the state party.

As Hauser points out, though, the recent history of self-funders is actually much more mixed. As it happens, personal wealth does not necessarily make someone a good political candidate. In the 2022 midterms, just two of the ten self-funders prevailed .

You can count on the Prospect , can we count on you?

There's no paywall here. Your donations power our newsroom as we report on ideas, politics and power — and what’s really at stake as we navigate another presidential election year. Please, become a member , or make a one-time donation , today. Thank you!

essay of criminal justice system

About the Prospect / Contact Info

Browse Archive / Back Issues

Subscription Services

Privacy Policy

DONATE TO THE PROSPECT

essay of criminal justice system

Copyright 2023 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved

Our criminal justice system is broken. But Donald Trump isn't a victim.

If we faced criminal charges, we know it would not help our defense if we insulted or threatened that very same criminal justice system. yet trump says he is the victim of a witch hunt..

No one is above the rule of law.  

That’s the promise of the American justice system – a promise that is tested by former President Donald Trump.  

Trump is facing dozens of criminal charges related to election interference and business dealings. 

Like clockwork, what follows Trump news is Trump noise. He hurls insults at judges, prosecutors, investigators and their agencies as he pushes back in an ugly, unprecedented fashion to pump up his already angry-at-America base of supporters.  

If we faced criminal charges, we know it would not help our defense if we insulted or threatened that very same criminal justice system.  

Trump isn't entirely wrong

Yet Trump says that he is the victim of a witch hunt by Democrats and his enemies, that he is suffering like Alexei Navalny , just like Jesus , just like Black people .  

It’s a ludicrous assertion.  

But he’s not entirely wrong. The legal system is sometimes unfair, but not in the ways Trump suggests – and not to Trump and people like him.  

'You are going to pay the price': DeSantis sends state troopers to halt Florida spring break crime. What about Trump's Mar-a-Lago?

Consider that Trump has bought and will continue to buy the best available defense – with $50 million in legal fees – and what that says about the stark contrast between Trump and those who are struggling and must accept whatever the justice system throws at them. 

With money and influence, the usual lawful process can be delayed, compromised or crushed along the way.  

Without money and influence, Americans facing criminal charges crimes often lose the game they are forced to play. They're walking into a meat grinder, almost always represented by struggling, inexperienced court-appointed lawyers without the finances to support a good defense.   

There is plenty of evidence that more often than we’d like to think, the truly innocent have gone to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, and not because of politics.  

Since 1989, nearly 3,500 Americans have been exonerated, according to the National Registry of Exonerations , after serving more than 31,000 years for crimes they did not commit. Those numbers clearly indicate, and I think most of us would agree, that we have a broken criminal justice system in need of reform. 

To understand true legal persecution, look no further than less-privileged Michigan citizens like Temujin Kensu , formerly known as Fredrick Freeman, and Detroit native Ray Gray .  

Estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people wrongfully imprisoned

Kensu and Gray are among the estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people condemned to lengthy U.S. prison sentences for crimes there is ample reason to believe they did not commit. The Innocence Project says at least 4% to 6% of the nation’s prison population is factually innocent.  

Kensu was convicted in 1987 of murder in Port Huron for the broad-daylight shotgun slaying of 20-year-old Scott Macklem, cut down as he walked away from a classroom building on the campus of St. Clair County Community College.  

Several witnesses testified that on the morning of the murder, Kensu was hundreds of miles away. But he was convicted by a jury when the prosecutor, Robert Cleland, presented without any proof a theory that the man with no money, a pregnant girlfriend, no job and living on food stamps chartered a plane to travel 450 miles to commit the murder and return undetected.   

When Kensu convinced the federal court that mistakes and harmful acts by the prosecutor, his drug-addicted lawyer and corrupt cops meant he should be released or be granted a new trial, an appeals court decided federal Judge Denise Page Hood’s ruling didn’t count. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 time-limited his innocence claim.   

At age 60, Kensu remains in prison, very ill and unable to get the governor to commute his sentence.   

Criminal justice: Laken Riley's death made the news, but here's the real story on undocumented migrants

Released after 48 years in state prison         

Raymond Gray spent more than 48 years in state prison in the robbery and murder of a drug dealer, convicted in a bench trial of the 1973 crime based on witness testimony – even though his family and one of the robbery suspects testified that Gray was at home when the crime was committed, styling the hair of one of his barber customers.  

Despite police reports of two male perpetrators, one armed with a pistol at the time of the robbery, only Gray was charged and convicted when a judge chose not to believe the testimony of Gray’s relatives.  

The Wayne County prosecutor’s office agreed to release Gray only if he pleaded to some element of the crime.  

Wrongfully convicted deserve protection and help 

The wrongfully convicted and their families have been awarded billions in compensation for their suffering through judgments or state-mandated payouts. Imagine what the cost to communities would be if the nation recognized and paid damages to all the known victims of the justice system's shortcomings.  

Unjust actions in the criminal justice system have left many wondering why the Constitution didn’t fulfill its promise to them.  

Last year, the right-wing majority of Trump's Supreme Court, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, stacked with a right-wing majority, again slammed the door on innocence claims. Trump is counting on this same Supreme Court to save him from criminal prosecution.  

The rule of law claims to grant equal rights and protections to everyone. It’s up to us to make that promise a reality.  

Maybe now, as we face the madness of Trump's bogus claim of unfair treatment, we should consider the real unfairness in our criminal justice system – and enact long-needed reforms and improvements to better protect those of us who aren't rich and famous from punishment we truly don’t deserve.  

Bill Proctor is a private investigator specializing in investigating wrongful convictions with his own firm, which he started after a four-decade career in broadcasting including 33 years as a reporter, producer and anchor in metro Detroit. This column first published in the Detroit Free Press .

IMAGES

  1. Essay on Criminal Justice System

    essay of criminal justice system

  2. Report 5 Pillars of Criminal Justice System

    essay of criminal justice system

  3. Essay On The Sentencing Of The Criminal Justice System

    essay of criminal justice system

  4. Criminal Justice Essay

    essay of criminal justice system

  5. Criminal Justice Essay Sample

    essay of criminal justice system

  6. The Structure Of Criminal Justice System Essay Example

    essay of criminal justice system

VIDEO

  1. Fundamentals of International Criminal Justice I

  2. Role of the victims in the criminal justice system

  3. The Future of the Criminal Justice System of America

COMMENTS

  1. 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

  2. Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

    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 ...

  3. 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

  4. Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law

    justice system. " Throughout, the essay reflects upon the assumptions and premises that go along with thinking about any complex phenomenon as a "system" and asks whether, in the age of mass incarceration, it is perhaps ... "criminal justice system" in a 1991 article that covers some of the same history and makes some similar

  5. 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 ...

  6. 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 ...

  7. 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 ...

  8. 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 ...

  9. 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 ...

  10. Criminal Justice Reform and Inequality

    Before diving in, a note on language: I refer throughout this essay to the set of agencies (e.g., police departments, state and federal courts, jails and prisons, parole and probation) that administer formal social control and criminal punishment as the "criminal legal system." The "criminal justice system" might be viewed as an ...

  11. 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 ...

  12. 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. The Role of Police

  13. Integrity and Its Place in Criminal Justice System Essay

    From a personal point of view, integrity is an amalgam of ethics and morals that shapes one's outlook on life. It is also a backbone that keeps a person strictly on a path of his principles. Integrity is also honesty, yet not honesty in its broadest and simplest sense. Integrity, first and foremost, is being honest with oneself.

  14. Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

    This essay offers some reflections on the "Waged Wars" and the efforts to identify "What Works" based on nearly 40 years of work evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. Keywords: Criminal Justice Reform, War on Drugs, War on Crime, US Correctional. The last fifty-plus years have seen considerable efforts and resources expended to ...

  15. The Criminal Justice System

    The United States criminal justice system primarily applies a "systems" approach in executing its duties, by using constitutional rules, state, federal, and departmental principles of criminal procedure, the Code of ethics, and bill of rights. To ensure that the system performs its functions to desired standards, the government controls the ...

  16. Essay: The criminal justice system

    The criminal justice system has different roles within it to reduce re-offending, deter crime from happening and to keep the public safe. The debate on whether to punish criminals or rehabilitate them is ongoing; in this essay, we will see which approach is the most effective for society and criminals and the sources and views that support each viewpoint.

  17. 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 ...

  18. How can we improve our criminal justice system?

    Canada needs to embrace restorative justice. Legal scholar Herbert L. Packer described two models of the criminal justice system: the crime-control model and the due-process model. The crime-control model focuses on harsh policies, laws and regulations. Its goal is to create swift and severe punishments for offenders.

  19. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

    Introduction. Throughout the nation, people of color are far more likely to enter the nation's justice system than the general population. State and federal governments are aware of this disparity, and researchers and policymakers are studying the drivers behind the statistics and what strategies might be employed to address the disparities, ensuring evenhanded processes at all points in the ...

  20. Browse All Articles and Essays

    The impact of stress on the mental and physical well-being of criminal justice professionals is of critical import for the effective operation of the criminal justice system. While a number of studies have examined various forms of stress among law enforcement and correctional officers, minimal research has examined the presence and impact of ...

  21. Criminal Justice System Essay [Free Example]

    This essay discusses how the criminal justice system is an important part of the government, allowing for the prosecution, imprisonment, and rehabilitation of criminals. Apart from the court system and police, the criminal justice system has other components like criminal justice agencies that provide additional information for researchers to form studies and articles to help improve the ...

  22. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024

    While this pie chart provides a comprehensive snapshot of our correctional system, the graphic does not capture the enormous churn in and out of our correctional facilities, nor the far larger universe of people whose lives are affected by the criminal legal system. In 2022, about 469,000 people entered prison gates, but people went to jail more than 7 million times. 4 5 Some have just been ...

  23. Will backtracking on criminal justice reform cut crime?

    The National Institute of Justice, a body of the U.S. Department of Justice, found in a 2016 analysis of a wide body of research that: The severity and length of punishment is a less effective ...

  24. Spotlight on the Biggest Criminal Justice Issues of 2023

    As the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) puts it, the United States does not have a single criminal justice system, but rather, "thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems." In fact, the US is home to 3,116 local jails, 1,566 state prisons, 1,323 juvenile correctional facilities, 181 immigration detention facilities, 98 federal prisons, and 80 Indian country jails in ...

  25. Effects of Technology in Criminal Justice Systems Essay

    The criminal justice system is a system in government involved with practices, whose intentions are to minimize crimes and disciplining those who violate the laws. It ensures that people are socially controlled, with laws enforced. To maintain this many personnel are involved in the system, among which are police, magistrates, attorneys, and ...

  26. Supreme Court Sides With Government on Reduced Sentencing Law

    The Supreme Court sided with the government on Friday, narrowly interpreting a provision of a landmark criminal justice law in a decision likely to limit the number of federal prisoners who are ...

  27. The Self-Funding 'Victim' of the Criminal Justice System

    Trone, in turn, is playing up his credentials as a criminal justice reformer, which he insists is a personal issue. Yet Trone's personal experience with the legal system is purely as a white-collar offender, which is not what most people associate with the failings of the criminal justice system.

  28. How NY's Guardianship System Can Be Fixed

    In New York, more than 28,000 adults are under the care of legally appointed guardians. But the system is in shambles, and weak oversight has enabled guardians to abuse, neglect and defraud the ...

  29. Trump's crimes show the justice system is working. For him

    Our criminal justice system is broken. But Donald Trump isn't a victim. If we faced criminal charges, we know it would not help our defense if we insulted or threatened that very same criminal ...