The Criminal Justice System: Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice - Essay Sample

Introduction

All societies in the world are characterized by the existence of crook individuals whose behaviours and activities are contrary to the accepted norms. In most cases, such people find themselves on the wrong side of the law by committing crimes. As a result, countries have established a system of delivering justice to those criminals through criminal justice. The criminal justice system is a series of national institutions and agencies entitled to the delivery of justice by preventing other crimes, rehabilitation of offenders, and supporting the victims of the crime. The main institutions and agencies in the criminal justice system are prisons, courts, deference lawyers, defence lawyers, and the police (Epstein, 2019). Most of these institutions are experiencing challenges that are hindering the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire criminal justice system. Criminal justice reforms, therefore, are the proposals or initiatives taken by society to fix the problems in the criminal justice system (LaraMillan, & Van Cleve, 2017). The goals of most criminal justice reforms are changing drug sentencing policy, reducing prison sentences, reducing the population in prisons, changing juvenile justice, and reducing overcriminalization. Several suggestions have been made for reforms in criminal justice systems whose aims are to end the problems facing the entire system.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Sentencing Reforms

In the United States of America, one of the central areas that have received a lot of critics in the criminal justice system is its sentencing practices. Many critics refer to the system as racially discriminatory as well as draconian. Besides, the current sentencing system is the main reason for the excessive and growing population in prison that has led to mass incarceration. Since the mid-1980s, the draconian sentencing laws and the increase in surveillance have led to a 500% increase in the prison population. The most affected individuals are those from communities of colour. Many researchers have observed that even though racial sentencing disparities is an indication of recidivism, crime seriousness, and criminal activities between different communities, the racial minorities in the United States are harshly punished compared to Whites who commit similar crimes (Monahan, & Skeem, 2016). It is, therefore, evident that in the country's criminal system, the ethnicity and race of an individual plays a major in dictating the outcome of the sentencing.

The second problem in the country's sentencing law is sentencing regulation in the country. People are sentenced for longer and more often compared to other countries. For example, a person who commits the same crime in the U.S.A with one from Germany receives five times more sentence in the U.S.A than in Germany. The mandatory minimums and truth in sentencing laws are examples of draconian policies that have led to overcrowding in the country's prisons (Vujic, Commandeur, & Koopman, 2016). According to the truth in sentencing policies, an offender should serve most of his/her sentence in prison before he is eligible for release. The reality in sentencing laws, therefore, eliminate or restrict sentencing exceptions such as parole board, earned-time, and good-time release. According to most of the truth in sentencing laws, offenders should be eligible for release after serving a minimum of 85% of their terms (LaraMillan, & Van Cleve, 2017). On the other hand, mandatory minimum laws direct courts to sentence individuals to a specific established minimum year for crimes committed. Research, however, shows that the shorter the period a person serve in prison, the higher the possibility of changing or not taking part in criminal activities.

The suggestion on sentencing laws reforms is to end the above problems is to reduce or eliminate truth in sentencing and mandatory minimum laws. For example, for people convicted more than three times for crimes related to drugs, the mandatory sentences should be reduced from to 25 years, instead of life without parole. For armed career criminals, the mandatory sentence should be reduced from 15 years to 10 years. However, for domestic violence crimes, the mandatory minimum should be increased (Monahan, & Skeem, 2016). These reforms will reduce the population of individuals in prisons, give them ample time to be incorporated into society, unlike the current draconian laws that have led to mass incarceration.

Drug Policy Reform

Drug trafficking and drug abuse have been a significant problem in society. Many countries have put strict criminal justice measures on those found with drugs as a way of limiting its associated problems. Beginning from 1970s, the war on drugs have led to marginalization of many people across American and beyond. The most affected people are those of colour and from a poor background. The criminalization of drug offenders has established public systems of punishment that that been both morally and economically costly to many. Despite these severe punishments, the drugs policies have failed to reduce drug-related disease transmission, drug use, drugs associated with violence, and death as a result of an overdose. Instead, these policies have pushed many people into a permanent second-class status because of the wide range of consequences associated with the involvement in the criminal justice system. Individuals arrested for crimes related to drugs face long-lasting barriers to immigration status, employment, housing, and parental rights (Greer, & Ritter, 2019). Other issues associated with criminal justice system policies on drugs include mass incarceration and racial oppression of the disadvantaged racial minorities who are prone to drug abuse.

Drug policy reforms are any proposed changes in how the government should respond to drugs issues. Proponents of judicial system reforms argue that government perception and practices toward these drugs are counterproductive and ineffective. They suggest that instead of introducing heavy punishment as the main ways of dealing with substance use, the citizens and government should focus on regulating the production, reducing the harm, and regulating its use in a similar way to how tobacco and alcohol are regulated (Taylor, Buchanan, & Ayres, 2016). The regulation of these drugs should be based on their relative harm. For example, the addictive nature of heroin and cocaine is less severe compared to those of tobacco, yet tobacco is legal. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 9% female deaths and 26% male deaths in the world is associated with the intake of tobacco. Besides, U.S Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Aspirin is more harmful and toxic than psilocybin (Schedule I) (Taylor, Buchanan, & Ayres, 2016).

Several suggestions have been proposed on criminal justice system reform on drugs. The three widely popularized reforms are harm reduction, drug decriminalization, and drug legalization (Taylor, Buchanan, & Ayres, 2016). Harm reduction policies involve the creation of a wide range of public health policies whose aims are to minimize the negative impacts associated with the recreational use of drugs. The proponents of these reforms argue that criminalizing and prohibiting the use of drugs forces addicts to obtain drugs from unreliable sources whose products may be dangerous for consumption. Drug decriminalization reforms call reduced penalties compared to the current laws. The criminal justice system should replace current prison terms with fines and other punishment (Taylor, Buchanan, & Ayres, 2016). Besides, the offenders should not receive permanent criminal records. Drug legalization reforms, on the other hand, called for the end of prohibition of the use and distribution of banned drugs. The government may, however, restrict the use of harmful drugs by introducing policies that restrict age limit, advertisement, and sales. The advantage of these drug policy reforms is that they help reduce problems such as mass incarceration but at the same reduce the harmful effects of drugs abuse.

Policing Reforms

In the recent past, police institution in the United States has been in the limelight on its atrocities towards the civilians. The issues of race and use of force have significantly featured as some of the weaknesses of the police departments. In the current decade, the shooting and killing of unarmed people by police officers have called considerably for the need for reforms in law enforcement (Pickett, & Ryon, 2017).

In 2014, the President Task Force on 21st Century Policing was formed to propose changes in the enforcement department. The task force was formed after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot twelve times after fitting the description of a robber who had stolen in a nearby store. Other cases where police have shot and killed unarmed people include the Walter Scott, Samuel Du Bose, Rekia Boyd, and Zachary Hammond among others. The majority of individuals killed by the police officers are people from racial minorities, especially the Blacks and the Latinos. Another dimension of police brutality that has attracted scrutiny is the fact that more than 25% of people shot by police officers have a mental illness (Epstein, 2019).

In an efforts to end the use of force and the killing of unarmed suspects, the President Task Force provided several recommendations. The first recommendation is that the police officers should wear a body camera while pursuing a suspect. It also recommended that in a case where a civilian dies in police custody, or if the police shot the individual, independent prosecutors should conduct the investigation instead of the investigators from the police department (Kann et al., 2018). These proposed reforms have a more significant impact of reducing the number of unnecessary deaths caused by excessive use of force by the police. The changes can restore the sore relationship with law enforcement and society. Since most of the victims of police shootings have been the minority such as the blacks, the blacks are more likely to feel safe than before (Metcalfe, & Pickett, 2018).

Juvenile Justice Reform

In America, the criminal justice police do not take into consideration the age and circumstance of crime among minors. The current system criminalizes young males, especially those from Latino and Black communities before they are adults. As a result, the juvenile justice system has been criticized as a form of social control whose effects has been to undermine young people. The youth experience criminalization in social institutions such as community centres, streets, and schools. The main weakness of the county's juvenile justice system is the fact that the majority of those of entering it, are children whose offence are non-violent. Despite their non-violent crime, the youth are still subjected to criminalization, direct and indirect punishment similar to those of violent offenders. Overall, the proponents of juvenile justice reforms argue that the current criminalization of youth is harmful because it damages the perception of Latino and Blacks on themselves and their abilities to be successful members of the society (Pickett, & Ryon, 2017).

The current juvenile justice system acts as a path that funnels individuals from school to prisons. The harsher disciplinary rule imposed on them prevents them from going back to school after the offence. The resulting failure to advance in education subject them to social pressures such as unemployment and low income, thus forcing them to criminal activity. The fact that most of the students arrested are from the Black commun...