what are the goals of criminal justice system essay

Memorial Day

In observance of the Memorial Day holiday, campus offices will be closed on Friday, May 24, and Monday, May 27 .

• Admission & Aid
• Student Life

What is the Criminal Justice System? Insights for Aspiring Legal Minds

As the criminal justice landscape continues to evolve, gaining a deep understanding of processes and principles of the field is crucial. Whether you are just beginning your educational journey or exploring specific areas of professional specialization, the insights offered below can help guide your decisions and shape your career in the legal sphere.   

This article explores the system's goals and operational dynamics, diving even further into the criminal justice system's primary objectives to ensure public safety, administer justice, and rehabilitate offenders.   

What Is the Purpose of the Criminal Justice System?  

What is the criminal justice system, exactly, and what is its purpose? The criminal justice system serves a multifaceted role in society, primarily aimed at maintaining public order, ensuring justice, and upholding the rule of law. Its core purpose revolves around the prevention and punishment of criminal behavior, which is critical for the stability and safety of communities. Additionally, the system is responsible for rehabilitating offenders, offering them opportunities for reform and reintegration into society.   

By balancing these goals, the criminal justice system strives to protect citizens, provide fair legal proceedings, and foster a safer environment for all. This fundamental understanding of purpose of the criminal justice system is essential for any student pursuing a career in related fields, as it shapes the framework within which they will operate professionally.  

Protecting Society and Maintaining Order  

The criminal justice system plays a central role in protecting society and maintaining order by ensuring that laws are enforced and justice is served as fairly as possible. It operates through three primary components that include law enforcement, the judiciary (courts), and corrections.   

Law enforcement agencies take the initial step in this process by responding to and investigating crimes, thereby preventing criminal activities and ensuring public safety. The judiciary evaluates the evidence presented and administers justice by determining guilt and handing down sentences, while corrections facilities manage the rehabilitation and sometimes punishment of offenders. This structured approach helps maintain a stable and safe society, supporting the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system to protect the public and uphold the rule of law​.  

Ensuring Justice and Fair Treatment  

The principle of ensuring justice and fair treatment within the criminal justice system revolves around the fundamental belief that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. However, defining and achieving fairness is complex due to the diversity of viewpoints on what this actually entails and the numerous competing interests at play. According to an analysis in the Sociological Methods & Research (SMR) journal , the concept of fairness can often be controversial because it intersects with various societal factors such as gender and racial biases that influence legal outcomes. This can lead to discussions about whether equality of outcomes is achievable without compromising the equality of treatment, especially when statistical disparities suggest inherent biases in enforcement and sentencing​.  

In addition, initiatives like the Smart on Crime program launched by the Department of Justice exemplify efforts to tailor charges and sentencing to the specifics of each case, thus promoting fair treatment by avoiding excessive mandatory minimums for low-level, nonviolent offenses. These policy adjustments are part of broader efforts to make the justice system more equitable and effective, which also include enhancing the credibility of the system to maintain public trust​.  

Key Components of the Criminal Justice System  

When answering the question, “What is the criminal justice system?” it is important to understand its main pillars. The criminal justice system in the United States is structured into three primary components that ensure the effective enforcement of laws and the administration of justice: law enforcement agencies, the court system, and corrections and rehabilitation services. Each component serves a unique function; law enforcement maintains public order, the court system adjudicates cases, and corrections and rehabilitation work to reintegrate offenders into society. Together, these elements uphold the rule of law and strive for a just society.  

Law Enforcement Agencies  

Law enforcement agencies are on the front lines, responsible for maintaining public order, enforcing laws, and preventing crime across local, state, and federal levels. This includes everything from routine patrols to criminal investigations and the apprehension of lawbreakers.  

The Court System  

The court system handles the adjudication process, where guilt or innocence is determined, and justice is served through fair and legal proceedings. This component is crucial for upholding the rule of law and administering justice equitably and efficiently.  

Corrections and Rehabilitation Services  

Lastly, corrections and rehabilitation services manage the aftermath of the court's decisions by overseeing the incarceration, rehabilitation, and reintegration of offenders. This segment of the criminal justice system plays a key role in attempting to reform offenders and prepare them for a return to society, aiming to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.  

The Process of the Criminal Justice System  

The criminal justice process encompasses several stages, each critical in ensuring justice while balancing fairness and societal safety. So, what is the purpose of the criminal justice system when put into practice?  

From the initial investigation and arrest to trial and sentencing, each phase plays a pivotal role in determining the outcome for the accused and the community. Post-sentencing efforts focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, striving to transform offenders into productive citizens. This systematic approach seeks to protect individual rights while maintaining public order—highlighting the complex interplay between law enforcement, judicial decisions, and correctional strategies.  

Investigation and Arrest Procedures  

This initial phase involves law enforcement agencies detecting and investigating criminal activities. Officers collect evidence, interview witnesses, and follow leads to apprehend suspects. Arrests are made based on probable cause that a person has committed a crime. This stage is crucial as it sets the groundwork for the legal process that follows.  

Trial and Adjudication  

During this stage, the court system takes center stage. The process begins with pre-trial motions and discovery, where both prosecution and defense exchange information and prepare their cases. Trials are then conducted, typically involving a judge and jury. The prosecution presents evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defense aims to challenge this evidence and advocate for the defendant’s innocence. This phase culminates in a verdict, where the defendant is either found guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented.  

Sentencing and Punishment  

If a defendant is convicted, the process moves to sentencing. Judges determine appropriate punishment based on the severity of the crime, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and the impact on the victims. Sentences can range from fines and community service to probation and incarceration, depending on the crime’s nature. This stage reflects the criminal justice system’s retributive and deterrent objectives.  

Rehabilitation and Reintegration  

Post-sentencing, the focus shifts to rehabilitation, especially for those incarcerated. Correctional facilities provide educational and vocational training, substance abuse programs, and mental health treatment aimed at addressing the root causes of criminal behavior. The goal is to prepare offenders for eventual reintegration into society, reducing the likelihood of reoffending and aiding in their transition back into the community.  

Challenges Facing the Criminal Justice System  

The criminal justice system faces a myriad of challenges that affect its efficiency and effectiveness. One significant issue is the growing concern over mass incarceration, which has led to overcrowded prisons and strained resources. This problem is compounded by the long-standing issues of racial disparities, where minorities are disproportionately represented in the system.   

Additionally, there are challenges in ensuring fair treatment and due process in the face of public and political pressures, which sometimes prioritize quick results over thorough and fair procedures. Technological advancements—while beneficial in solving and preventing crimes—also bring new challenges related to cybercrime and digital evidence handling. In general, the system must continuously adapt to changes in laws and societal norms, requiring ongoing training and development for law enforcement and judicial personnel.   

These challenges demand comprehensive reforms and innovative solutions to ensure the criminal justice system can effectively serve its foundational goal of administering justice while protecting society.  

Issues of Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities  

The criminal justice system is marked by significant racial and socioeconomic disparities that manifest at various stages, from policing practices to sentencing. These disparities disproportionately affect communities of color in the U.S., particularly African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Research highlights that these groups often experience higher rates of poverty and live in areas with concentrated socioeconomic disadvantages, which correlates with higher rates of certain types of crimes, such as violent and property crimes.   

This socioeconomic context contributes to a higher likelihood of encounters with the police and subsequent incarceration. Moreover, practices like "stop and frisk" and the enforcement of drug laws have been critiqued for their uneven application, often targeting these same communities disproportionately. This has led to higher arrest and incarceration rates among these populations compared to their white counterparts, exacerbating the cycle of inequality and injustice within the system.  

The Debate Over Punishment vs. Rehabilitation  

The discourse surrounding punishment and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system reflects a fundamental question about the goals of incarceration. On one hand, proponents of punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime and a method of retributive justice, ensuring that offenders face consequences for their actions. This approach is often justified by the need for public safety and the moral imperative of retribution for victims and society at large.  

Conversely, advocates for rehabilitation emphasize the potential for reform and the long-term benefits of reintegrating offenders into society as productive members. Rehabilitation programs focus on addressing the underlying issues that may lead to criminal behavior (such as substance abuse, mental health disorders, and lack of education or vocational skills). The goal here is to not only punish but also prevent future crimes through personal development and support.  

This ongoing debate highlights the tension between these approaches and the broader implications for recidivism rates and societal safety. The effectiveness of either strategy can vary significantly, influenced by factors like the nature of the crime, the individual circumstances of the offender, and the resources available for either punitive or rehabilitative measures.  

Careers in the Criminal Justice System  

Clearly, the criminal justice system is complex, so it makes sense there exists a diverse array of career opportunities across its three main branches of law enforcement, the legal and court system, and corrections and rehabilitation. These sectors provide a variety of roles tailored to different skills and interests, from front-line officers to behind-the-scenes legal experts and rehabilitative staff.   

For those passionate about making a tangible impact on their communities, the criminal justice field offers meaningful and challenging pathways to pursue. Whether ensuring public safety, delivering justice, or aiding in rehabilitation, these careers are essential to a functioning society.  

Law Enforcement Careers  

These roles, which include police officers and detectives, focus on enforcing laws, ensuring public safety, and responding to emergencies. Specialists like transit officers enforce security on public transport systems. The work often requires physical fitness, strong problem-solving skills, and the ability to handle stressful situations.  

Legal and Court System Careers  

This sector features roles such as lawyers who advocate for clients, judges who ensure the fairness of trials, and court clerks who manage the flow of cases. These positions require strong analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and the capacity to handle intricate legal processes.  

Corrections and Rehabilitation Careers  

In this area, professionals like correctional officers oversee incarcerated individuals, while rehabilitation specialists work on reformative programs aimed at reducing recidivism. This field requires strong interpersonal skills and a commitment to ethical standards.  

Pursue Your Career in Criminal Justice Today  

As you consider your future in the criminal justice field, University of the Cumberlands offers comprehensive degree programs designed to empower aspiring professionals. No matter if you're starting with a Bachelor of Criminal Justice , advancing with our online Criminal Justice Management Certification , or looking to master complex leadership roles with our online Master of Science in Criminal Justice Administration (MJA) , we help equip students with the tools and expertise they need to excel.   

Apply today to level up your career prospects and join an academic community committed to justice and excellence.   

• Social Policy

How can we improve our criminal justice system?

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.

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.

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

Republish this article

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;">

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

Related stories

Failure to protect: the criminalization of survivors of intimate-partner violence

Policing women’s sexuality in the name of protection

Why do young offenders return to prison?

Finding Humanity in Our Criminal Justice System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• The New Face of Doctor Who
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
• The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Guide to the U.S. Criminal Justice System

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

What Is the Criminal Justice System? | Law Enforcement | Courts | Corrections | Tribal Law | How the System Works | Careers | FAQ

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

What Is the Criminal Justice System?

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

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

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

Law Enforcement in the United States

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

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

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

Federal Law Enforcement

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

DOJ Agencies

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

DHS Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

State Law Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local and Municipal Law Enforcement

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

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

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

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

Court and Legal Systems in the United States

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

State courts receive a broad jurisdiction, hearing cases regarding:

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

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

• Federal law or Constitutional violations
• Copyright and patent law
• Maritime law

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

State Courts

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

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

• Traffic court
• Misdemeanor crimes
• Preliminary felony hearings

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

• Probate law
• City ordinance violations

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

• Property disputes
• Major felonies

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrections in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribal Law in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?

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

1) Entry Into the Criminal Justice System

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

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

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

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

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

2) Prosecution and Pretrial

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

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

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

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

3) Trial Process

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

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

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

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

4) Corrections

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

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

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

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

Careers in Criminal Justice

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

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

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

Police and Detectives

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

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

Correctional Officers and Bailiffs

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

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

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

Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists

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

• Median Salary (2023): $61,800

Forensic Science Technicians

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

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

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

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

Sociologists

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

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

Postsecondary Teachers

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

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

• Median Salary (2023): $69,030

Frequently Asked Questions About the Criminal Justice System

What is the criminal justice system in simple terms.

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

How has the criminal justice system changed over time?

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

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

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

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

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

Is the FBI part of the criminal justice system?

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

Take the next step toward your future in criminal justice.

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

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

Richard Lempert

May 15, 2024

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:15 am EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

10:00 am - 11:30 am EDT

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication

Criminology

• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Punishment Justification and Goals

Introduction, general overviews.

• Readers and Journals
• Retributivism
• Avoidance of Racial Bias and Disproportionality
• Humane Treatment and Human Dignity
• Procedural Fairness
• Incapacitation
• Rehabilitation
• Moral Education
• Nonretributive Proportionality Principles
• Restorative, Community, and Therapeutic Justice
• Shaming Punishments
• Administrative Purposes and Limitations of Punishment
• Effectiveness of Punishment
• Limiting Retributivism
• Interchangeable Sanctions of Equivalent Retributive Value
• Other Hybrid Theories
• Classical Accounts of Punishment Purposes
• History of Punishment Purposes
• Sociological and Comparative-International Perspectives

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Capital Punishment
• Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonment
• Crime Control Policy
• Felon Disenfranchisement
• For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Industrial Complex
• Labeling Theory
• Prison Labor
• Restorative Justice
• Sentencing Policy
• The New Penology

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Education Programs in Prison
• Juvenile Justice Professionals' Perceptions of Youth
• Juvenile Waiver
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Punishment Justification and Goals by Richard S. Frase LAST REVIEWED: 02 March 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 02 March 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0116

Criminal punishments are government sanctions imposed on persons convicted of criminal acts (other forms of punishment, not dealt with in this bibliography, include measures imposed by parents on their children, by organizations on their members, by employers, etc.). Criminal punishment requires clear and convincing justification for two essential reasons. First, such punishment is, almost by definition, unpleasant and harmful to the offender, at least in the short term: it deliberately brands and stigmatizes that person as a wrongdoer, usually involves some loss of liberty or other harsh treatment, and often causes harm to the offender’s family. Second, punishment consumes scarce public resources that might be better spent on other pressing needs, or better spent on alternate ways of achieving the supposed justification(s) for the punishment. Punishment justifications and goals can be either positive or negative criteria: they can provide moral and/or practical arguments in favor of the punishment, or they can set limits on the type or degree of punishment that it is permissible to impose under one or more of the positive rationales. Whether positive or negative, punishment justifications and goals fall into two major categories. So-called deontological rationales and limits evaluate a particular punishment according to its inherent value—whether it is a good or a bad thing in itself, regardless of whether the punishment yields good or bad consequences. The second category of rationales and limits are “consequentialist” (or utilitarian); punishment is justified and limited according to whether it produces good or bad effects, in particular whether it tends to decrease future criminal acts by the offender and/or other would-be offenders. Some theories of punishment belong entirely to one or the other of these two main categories, but a number of hybrid or mixed theories have been proposed, incorporating both deontological and consequentialist principles, and most modern legal systems take this approach.

Bedau and Kelly 2010 provides a broad overview of traditional consequentialist and deontological theories of punishment and the evolution of these theories over time. Duff 2010 also reviews consequentialist and retributive theories, expanding his coverage to include a discussion of mixed, restorative, and abolitionist theories of punishment. Greenawalt 2001 reviews various punishment theories and notes how each theory is related to sentencing practices and to principles governing criminal procedure and criminal liability. Hart 2008 gives a philosophical perspective on punishment and the questions of who, why, and how society should choose to punish. Tonry 2006 discusses a broad range of legitimate and illegitimate punishment purposes, and proposes a model system.

Bedau, Hugo A., and Erin Kelly. 2010. Punishment . In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Reviews consequentialist and deontological theories, their common features, changing emphasis given to each over time, and writings analyzing those changes. Asserts that punishment is inherently retributive but should also serve consequentialist purposes (especially incapacitation) and respect the principle of miminalism (of two equally effective penalties, the less severe is better).

Duff, Antony. 2010. Legal punishment . In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Reviews consequentialist, retributive, mixed (hybrid), restorative, and abolitionist theories of punishment. Also examines how the justification of punishment depends on the existence and justifications for the criminal law and the state itself. Emphasizes one version of retributive theory based on the expressive or communicative character of punishment.

Greenawalt, Kent. 2001. Punishment. In Encyclopedia of crime and justice . Vol. 3. 2d ed. Edited by Joshua Dressler, 1282–1294. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

A broad overview of the concept of punishment and various theories purporting to justify it, including retributive, utilitarian (consequentialist), and mixed (hybrid) theories. Examines how 20th-century changes in sentencing practice reflected changes in theory, and how sentencing theory is linked to principles governing criminal procedures and criminal liability.

Hart, Herbert L. A. 2008. Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law . 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Chapter 1 defines “punishment” (unpleasant consequences, imposed intentionally and officially, on an actual or supposed offender), and argues that different justifications (e.g., retributive, utilitarian) may apply to the institution of punishment (why punish anyone ?), the selection of persons to be punished, and the type or severity of punishment. First edition published in 1968 (Oxford: Clarendon).

Tonry, Michael. 2006. Purposes and functions of sentencing. In Crime and justice: A review of research . Vol. 34. Edited by Michael Tonry, 1–53. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Reviews the current fragmented state of sentencing theory; proposes a model system employing legally binding guidelines based on limiting retributivism but accommodating treatment and restorative justice programs; the system should pursue purposes that are “primary” (e.g., rehabilitation) or “ancillary” (e.g., system efficiency), while rejecting illegitimate “latent” goals such as political advantage.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Criminology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Active Offender Research
• Adler, Freda
• Adversarial System of Justice
• Adverse Childhood Experiences
• Aging Prison Population, The
• Airport and Airline Security
• Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
• Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
• Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
• Animals, Crimes Against
• Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
• Bail and Pretrial Detention
• Batterer Intervention Programs
• Bentham, Jeremy
• Big Data and Communities and Crime
• Biosocial Criminology
• Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
• Blumstein, Alfred
• Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
• Burglary, Residential
• Bystander Intervention
• Chambliss, William
• Chicago School of Criminology, The
• Child Maltreatment
• Chinese Triad Society
• Civil Protection Orders
• Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
• Collective Efficacy
• Commercial and Bank Robbery
• Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
• Communicating Scientific Findings in the Courtroom
• Community Change and Crime
• Community Corrections
• Community Disadvantage and Crime
• Community-Based Justice Systems
• Community-Based Substance Use Prevention
• Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
• CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
• Confessions, False and Coerced
• Conservation Criminology
• Consumer Fraud
• Contextual Analysis of Crime
• Control Balance Theory
• Convict Criminology
• Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
• Corporate Crime
• Costs of Crime and Justice
• Courts, Drug
• Courts, Juvenile
• Courts, Mental Health
• Courts, Problem-Solving
• Crime and Justice in Latin America
• Crime, Campus
• Crime Control, Politics of
• Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
• Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
• Crime Prevention, Situational
• Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
• Crime Trends
• Crime Victims' Rights Movement
• Criminal Career Research
• Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
• Criminal Justice Data Sources
• Criminal Justice Ethics
• Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
• Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
• Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
• Criminal Records
• Criminal Retaliation
• Criminal Talk
• Criminology and Political Science
• Criminology of Genocide, The
• Critical Criminology
• Cross-National Crime
• Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
• Cultural Criminology
• Cultural Theories
• Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
• Cycle of Violence
• Deadly Force
• Defense Counsel
• Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
• Developmental and Life-Course Criminology
• Digital Piracy
• Driving and Traffic Offenses
• Drug Control
• Drug Trafficking, International
• Drugs and Crime
• Elder Abuse
• Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
• Employee Theft
• Environmental Crime and Justice
• Experimental Criminology
• Family Violence
• Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
• Feminist Theories
• Feminist Victimization Theories
• Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
• Firearms and Violence
• Forensic Science
• For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
• Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
• Gender and Crime
• Gendered Crime Pathways
• General Opportunity Victimization Theories
• Genetics, Environment, and Crime
• Green Criminology
• Halfway Houses
• Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
• Hate Crime Legislation
• Healthcare Fraud
• Hirschi, Travis
• History of Crime in the United Kingdom
• History of Criminology
• Homelessness and Crime
• Homicide Victimization
• Honor Cultures and Violence
• Hot Spots Policing
• Human Rights
• Human Trafficking
• Identity Theft
• Immigration, Crime, and Justice
• Incarceration, Mass
• Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
• Income Tax Evasion
• Indigenous Criminology
• Institutional Anomie Theory
• Integrated Theory
• Intermediate Sanctions
• Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
• Interrogation
• Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
• Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
• Investigation, Criminal
• Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System, The
• Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
• Labor Markets and Crime
• Land Use and Crime
• Lead and Crime
• LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
• LGBTQ People in Prison
• Life Without Parole Sentencing
• Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
• Lombroso, Cesare
• Longitudinal Research in Criminology
• Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
• Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
• Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
• Measuring Crime
• Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
• Mental Health and Crime
• Merton, Robert K.
• Meta-analysis in Criminology
• Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
• Migrant Detention and Incarceration
• Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
• Money Laundering
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Multi-Level Marketing Scams
• Murder, Serial
• Narrative Criminology
• National Deviancy Symposia, The
• Nature Versus Nurture
• Neighborhood Disorder
• Neutralization Theory
• New Penology, The
• Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
• Offense Specialization/Expertise
• Organized Crime
• Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
• Panel Methods in Criminology
• Peacemaking Criminology
• Peer Networks and Delinquency
• Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
• Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
• Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
• Phenomenological Theories of Crime
• Plea Bargaining
• Police Administration
• Police Cooperation, International
• Police Discretion
• Police Effectiveness
• Police History
• Police Militarization
• Police Misconduct
• Police, Race and the
• Police Use of Force
• Police, Violence against the
• Policing and Law Enforcement
• Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
• Policing, Broken Windows
• Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
• Policing Cybercrime
• Policing, Evidence-Based
• Policing, Intelligence-Led
• Policing, Privatization of
• Policing, Proactive
• Policing, School
• Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
• Policing, Third Party
• Polyvictimization
• Positivist Criminology
• Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
• Pretrial Diversion
• Prison Administration
• Prison Classification
• Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
• Prison Education Exchange Programs
• Prison Gangs and Subculture
• Prison History
• Prison Visitation
• Prisoner Reentry
• Prisons and Jails
• Prisons, HIV in
• Private Security
• Probation Revocation
• Procedural Justice
• Property Crime
• Prosecution and Courts
• Prostitution
• Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
• Psychology and Crime
• Public Criminology
• Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
• Public Order Crimes
• Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
• Punishment Justification and Goals
• Qualitative Methods in Criminology
• Queer Criminology
• Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
• Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
• Racial Threat Hypothesis
• Racial Profiling
• Rape and Sexual Assault
• Rape, Fear of
• Rational Choice Theories
• Religion and Crime
• Risk Assessment
• Routine Activity Theories
• School Bullying
• School Crime and Violence
• School Safety, Security, and Discipline
• Search Warrants
• Seasonality and Crime
• Self-Control, The General Theory:
• Self-Report Crime Surveys
• Sentencing Enhancements
• Sentencing, Evidence-Based
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
• Sex Trafficking
• Sexual Revictimization
• Situational Action Theory
• Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
• Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
• Social Construction of Crime, The
• Social Control of Tobacco Use
• Social Control Theory
• Social Disorganization
• Social Ecology of Crime
• Social Learning Theory
• Social Networks
• Social Threat and Social Control
• Solitary Confinement
• South Africa, Crime and Justice in
• Sport Mega-Events Security
• Stalking and Harassment
• State Crime
• State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
• Strain Theories
• Street Code
• Street Robbery
• Substance Use and Abuse
• Surveillance, Public and Private
• Sutherland, Edwin H.
• Technology and the Criminal Justice System
• Technology, Criminal Use of
• Terrorism and Hate Crime
• Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
• Testimony, Eyewitness
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence
• Trajectory Methods in Criminology
• Transnational Crime
• Truth-In-Sentencing
• Urban Politics and Crime
• US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
• Victim Impact Statements
• Victimization, Adolescent
• Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
• Victimization Patterns and Trends
• Victimization, Repeat
• Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
• Victimless Crime
• Victim-Offender Overlap, The
• Violence Against Women
• Violence, Youth
• Violent Crime
• White-Collar Crime
• White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
• White-Collar Crime, Women and
• Wilson, James Q.
• Wolfgang, Marvin
• Women, Girls, and Reentry
• Wrongful Conviction
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

The Importance of the Criminal Justice System and Today’s Professionals

In the current climate, there are many questions surrounding our criminal justice system. Some people have questioned the multiple roles that are played by our officers in blue. Some have defended the badge and others have called for reform and sweeping overhauls to city funding. No matter your political views, one thing is clear: The U.S. criminal justice system plays a big part in our society. Keeping communities safe should be the number one priority. If you want to help make your community a safer place, you may be considering a career in law enforcement or criminal justice.

At its core, there are three main components of the criminal justice system: law enforcement , courts , and corrections . Each of these branches must run properly to maintain law and order within a society. Now, more than ever, it is critical that we have educated, honest, and quality professionals working in these sectors. In this article, we will highlight the importance of the criminal justice system and all the professionals who are dedicated to standing up for justice.

Why is the Criminal Justice System Important?

The criminal justice system is designed to deliver “justice for all.” This means protecting the innocent, convicting criminals, and providing a fair justice process to help keep order across the country. In other words, it keeps our citizens safe. Without the criminal justice system, and all those who work within it, there might be havoc, violence, theft, and danger all around. But because of criminal justice professionals – those in law enforcement, corrections, and courts – we can trust that we can travel home, to work, and/or out in public, safely and securely.

Importance of Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officers are brave men and women that work to investigate crimes, gather and protect evidence, and respond to reports of various crimes. Officers are considered first responders. On a daily given basis, they respond to emergency calls, patrol assigned areas, conduct traffic stops, issue citations, and more. Police officers need to be fit – both physically and mentally – for their work. Officers may need to restrain suspects and even chase them on-foot. They also need to be prepared to see victims of violent crimes or fatal car accidents.

There is certainly a lot of stress involved in the work of law enforcement, and safety is always a big concern. But while it is a high-risk job, it is also one that offers plenty of reward. Successful police officers often feel pride in protecting their community. They are well respected, and are often considered role models for young children in a town or city. They also earn a decent living. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , police officers earned a median annual salary of $65,170 in 2019 – not including overtime.

Importance of Corrections

Correctional officers often face the same mix of stress and reward as those in law enforcement. The officers who patrol correctional institutions (i.e. prisons and jails) protect and guard the inmates and staff on-site. They work hard to maintain order and often need to restrain prisoners who get out of line. The role of correctional officer is important, not only in keeping criminals confined within prison walls, but in rehabilitating those who have committed crimes.

Importance of Court Professionals

The judicial branch of the court – and all the people within it – play an important role in keeping order across the United States. The court professionals, from judges to bailiffs, are responsible for understanding criminal cases, divulging the truth behind them, and deciding what should be done to correct it. Their goal is to provide a peaceful jurisdiction, to determine whether a person committed a crime and, if so, how they should be reprimanded.

Pursuing an Important Career with the Criminal Justice System

If you would like to pursue a career in criminal justice, you may be wondering where to start. While some of the jobs in the criminal justice system do not require much more than a high school diploma or equivalent, there are many benefits to earning a degree in criminal justice before beginning your career.

Studies show that officers who pursue an education are more effective at their job. According to a paper published in Police Quarterly back in 2010, police officers with a higher level of education are significantly less likely to use force during a civilian encounter than those with a high school-level education.

There are plenty of fields open to someone looking to start a career in criminal justice. Some of these career options include:

• Border protection
• Computer security
• Corrections
• Cybercrime investigation
• Drug Enforcement Agency

Goodwin University has three programs that focus on the criminal justice system, and you can take your pick between pursuing these programs at the associate degree or bachelor’s degree level. You may choose between:

• Criminal Justice (Associate Degree)
• Public Safety and Security (Bachelor’s Degree)

There is no questioning the importance of the criminal justice system. It plays a crucial role in keeping our streets safe and our communities protected. It is also clear that the U.S. needs well-educated professionals to fill this important role. The only question left is: Which path will you pursue?

If you would like to learn more about why Goodwin University is a leading Criminal Justice School, call 800-889-3282 or click here to request more information .

Goodwin University is a nonprofit institution of higher education and is accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE), formerly known as the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Goodwin University was founded in 1999, with the goal of serving a diverse student population with career-focused degree programs that lead to strong employment outcomes.

• Document Portal
• Online Classroom
• Student Portal
• Call Us 702-254-7577
• Request Info

Purpose of the Criminal Justice System: Examining The Purpose and Process

• Criminal Justice
• March 12, 2024

The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society, punish offenders and rehabilitate criminals. It does this by following a process where the offender is arrested and tried for what they did wrong.

If found guilty, they are punished with jail time or other punishments such as fines or community service. The offender may also be ordered to go through rehabilitation programs in order to stop them from committing crimes again in the future.

The goal of this article is to examine what the purpose of this system actually is, as well as how it works.

Read More: Why Criminal Justice is Important

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of the criminal justice system?

What career paths are available in the criminal justice system, qualifying for your future, what does ‘criminal justice’ mean.

The term criminal justice refers to the system of laws, law enforcement agencies, and associated personnel that work together to maintain order in society by identifying criminals who have committed crimes against the state or other citizens.

There are several different criminal justice systems throughout the world. Each one is designed according to what type of government runs it—whether a democracy, monarchy, or dictatorship for example.

Generally, however, they follow very similar steps when dealing with crime: arrest suspects; conduct investigations; bring cases before courts if necessary; pass sentences on convicted offenders, etc.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society, punish offenders and rehabilitate criminals. It does this by following a process where the offender is arrested and tried for what they did wrong. If found guilty, they are punished in some way.

People are put into the criminal justice system through what they do—or what is done to them. If someone commits a crime, they may be arrested and put on trial with their fate decided by a judge or jury of their peers (people who committed similar crimes).

Punishment changes depending on what crime has been committed and might involve being sent to jail for several years, being made to pay a fine, or having their driver’s license revoked.

The criminal justice system is what makes us feel safe in our own homes and what keeps order in society.

The process that the government follows when dealing with criminals helps keep peace within a community by punishing those who have done wrong while providing rehabilitation so they can become productive.

There are plenty of careers available in the criminal justice system, especially if you are interested in becoming something that isn’t a lawyer. Some of the most common careers in the criminal justice system include:

• Law enforcement: police officers, detectives, and deputy sheriffs
• Corrections officer: jailers, correctional treatment specialists, and parole or probation officers
• Legal support staff members such as paralegals who work with attorneys to help them prepare for what will happen during a trial. They can also be responsible for assisting witnesses when they come in to give their testimony.
• Interpreters and translators who work with the court to translate what is being said from one language into another
• Clerical staff members such as legal secretaries, bookkeepers, or computer technicians who are responsible for the upkeep of all of the files that are used in a trial. This includes not just what happens during a case but also what happened before it.

As you can see, there are many career paths in the criminal justice system, each with a range of different, but vital, duties, making it an excellent and exciting field in which to work. 

Gaining the criminal justice degree from our trade school puts you in an excellent position to access a variety of employment opportunities as you look for one that suits your skills and interests. 

At Northwest Career College, our Criminal Justice instructors include licensed, practicing attorneys and degree instructors able to teach, not only the law but also to guide our students in the many ways a criminal justice graduate integrates into a Las Vegas legal profession.

As part of our Criminal Justice Program, you’ll visit courts, jails, meditation centers, and more to experience first-hand the law in action, which will make your criminal justice training applicable to the Las Vegas legal system. 

Northwest offers a flexible blended program with all criminal justice classes, Las Vegas law classes taught on campus by an attorney, and general education courses offered online. Our experienced instructors are on campus to review and support your learning experience at all times. 

Call us at (702) 403-1592 to speak to one of our enrollment team about joining our Criminal Justice Program today!

Beginning her career as a Paralegal, Lisa soon advanced to the role of Senior Paralegal for various Family Law, Personal Injury and Corporate law firms in the Las Vegas community. She obtained her Juris Doctor and LL.M, completing her fellowship… Read Full Bio

Related Article

Top 10 Reasons to Pursue a Degree in Criminal

Top 10 Emerging Trends in Criminal Justice for 2024:

June 3rd, 2024

We Value Your Privacy

• © 2012-2024 NorthwestCareerCollege.edu
• Privacy Policy
• Website & SEO Services by Axilweb

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

United States Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 1980–2020

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.

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.

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.

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 ]

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

Here's how you know

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

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

The Justice System

What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system.

  To text description  | To a larger version of the chart  | Download high resolution version (.zip)

The flowchart of the events in the criminal justice system (shown in the diagram) updates the original chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1967. The chart summarizes the most common events in the criminal and juvenile justice systems including entry into the criminal justice system, prosecution and pretrial services, adjudication, sentencing and sanctions, and corrections. A discussion of the events in the criminal justice system follows.

The response to crime

The private sector initiates the response to crime

This first response may come from individuals, families, neighborhood associations, business, industry, agriculture, educational institutions, the news media, or any other private service to the public.

It involves crime prevention as well as participation in the criminal justice process once a crime has been committed. Private crime prevention is more than providing private security or burglar alarms or participating in neighborhood watch. It also includes a commitment to stop criminal behavior by not engaging in it or condoning it when it is committed by others.

Citizens take part directly in the criminal justice process by reporting crime to the police, by being a reliable participant (for example, a witness or a juror) in a criminal proceeding and by accepting the disposition of the system as just or reasonable. As voters and taxpayers, citizens also participate in criminal justice through the policymaking process that affects how the criminal justice process operates, the resources available to it, and its goals and objectives. At every stage of the process from the original formulation of objectives to the decision about where to locate jails and prisons to the reintegration of inmates into society, the private sector has a role to play. Without such involvement, the criminal justice process cannot serve the citizens it is intended to protect.

The response to crime and public safety involves many agencies and services

Many of the services needed to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe are supplied by noncriminal justice agencies, including agencies with primary concern for public health, education, welfare, public works, and housing. Individual citizens as well as public and private sector organizations have joined with criminal justice agencies to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe.

Criminal cases are brought by the government through the criminal justice system

We apprehend, try, and punish offenders by means of a loose confederation of agencies at all levels of government. Our American system of justice has evolved from the English common law into a complex series of procedures and decisions. Founded on the concept that crimes against an individual are crimes against the State, our justice system prosecutes individuals as though they victimized all of society. However, crime victims are involved throughout the process and many justice agencies have programs which focus on helping victims.

There is no single criminal justice system in this country. We have many similar systems that are individually unique. Criminal cases may be handled differently in different jurisdictions, but court decisions based on the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution require that specific steps be taken in the administration of criminal justice so that the individual will be protected from undue intervention from the State.

The description of the criminal and juvenile justice systems that follows portrays the most common sequence of events in response to serious criminal behavior.

To contents

The justice system does not respond to most crime because so much crime is not discovered or reported to the police. Law enforcement agencies learn about crime from the reports of victims or other citizens, from discovery by a police officer in the field, from informants, or from investigative and intelligence work.

Once a law enforcement agency has established that a crime has been committed, a suspect must be identified and apprehended for the case to proceed through the system. Sometimes, a suspect is apprehended at the scene; however, identification of a suspect sometimes requires an extensive investigation. Often, no one is identified or apprehended. In some instances, a suspect is arrested and later the police determine that no crime was committed and the suspect is released.

After an arrest, law enforcement agencies present information about the case and about the accused to the prosecutor, who will decide if formal charges will be filed with the court. If no charges are filed, the accused must be released. The prosecutor can also drop charges after making efforts to prosecute (nolle prosequi).

A suspect charged with a crime must be taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay. At the initial appearance, the judge or magistrate informs the accused of the charges and decides whether there is probable cause to detain the accused person. If the offense is not very serious, the determination of guilt and assessment of a penalty may also occur at this stage.

Often, the defense counsel is also assigned at the initial appearance. All suspects prosecuted for serious crimes have a right to be represented by an attorney. If the court determines the suspect is indigent and cannot afford such representation, the court will assign counsel at the public's expense.

A pretrial-release decision may be made at the initial appearance, but may occur at other hearings or may be changed at another time during the process. Pretrial release and bail were traditionally intended to ensure appearance at trial. However, many jurisdictions permit pretrial detention of defendants accused of serious offenses and deemed to be dangerous to prevent them from committing crimes prior to trial.

The court often bases its pretrial decision on information about the defendant's drug use, as well as residence, employment, and family ties. The court may decide to release the accused on his/her own recognizance or into the custody of a third party after the posting of a financial bond or on the promise of satisfying certain conditions such as taking periodic drug tests to ensure drug abstinence.

In many jurisdictions, the initial appearance may be followed by a preliminary hearing. The main function of this hearing is to discover if there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed a known crime within the jurisdiction of the court. If the judge does not find probable cause, the case is dismissed; however, if the judge or magistrate finds probable cause for such a belief, or the accused waives his or her right to a preliminary hearing, the case may be bound over to a grand jury.

A grand jury hears evidence against the accused presented by the prosecutor and decides if there is sufficient evidence to cause the accused to be brought to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it submits to the court an indictment, a written statement of the essential facts of the offense charged against the accused.

Where the grand jury system is used, the grand jury may also investigate criminal activity generally and issue indictments called grand jury originals that initiate criminal cases. These investigations and indictments are often used in drug and conspiracy cases that involve complex organizations. After such an indictment, law enforcement tries to apprehend and arrest the suspects named in the indictment.

Misdemeanor cases and some felony cases proceed by the issuance of an information, a formal, written accusation submitted to the court by a prosecutor. In some jurisdictions, indictments may be required in felony cases. However, the accused may choose to waive a grand jury indictment and, instead, accept service of an information for the crime.

In some jurisdictions, defendants, often those without prior criminal records, may be eligible for diversion from prosecution subject to the completion of specific conditions such as drug treatment. Successful completion of the conditions may result in the dropping of charges or the expunging of the criminal record where the defendant is required to plead guilty prior to the diversion.

Once an indictment or information has been filed with the trial court, the accused is scheduled for arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused is informed of the charges, advised of the rights of criminal defendants, and asked to enter a plea to the charges. Sometimes, a plea of guilty is the result of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant.

If the accused pleads guilty or pleads nolo contendere (accepts penalty without admitting guilt), the judge may accept or reject the plea. If the plea is accepted, no trial is held and the offender is sentenced at this proceeding or at a later date. The plea may be rejected and proceed to trial if, for example, the judge believes that the accused may have been coerced.

If the accused pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, a date is set for the trial. A person accused of a serious crime is guaranteed a trial by jury. However, the accused may ask for a bench trial where the judge, rather than a jury, serves as the finder of fact. In both instances the prosecution and defense present evidence by questioning witnesses while the judge decides on issues of law. The trial results in acquittal or conviction on the original charges or on lesser included offenses.

After the trial a defendant may request appellate review of the conviction or sentence. In some cases, appeals of convictions are a matter of right; all States with the death penalty provide for automatic appeal of cases involving a death sentence. Appeals may be subject to the discretion of the appellate court and may be granted only on acceptance of a defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. Prisoners may also appeal their sentences through civil rights petitions and writs of habeas corpus where they claim unlawful detention.

After a conviction, sentence is imposed. In most cases the judge decides on the sentence, but in some jurisdictions the sentence is decided by the jury, particularly for capital offenses.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a sentencing hearing may be held at which evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is considered. In assessing the circumstances surrounding a convicted person's criminal behavior, courts often rely on presentence investigations by probation agencies or other designated authorities. Courts may also consider victim impact statements.

The sentencing choices that may be available to judges and juries include one or more of the following:

• the death penalty
• incarceration in a prison, jail, or other confinement facility
• probation - allowing the convicted person to remain at liberty but subject to certain conditions and restrictions such as drug testing or drug treatment
• fines - primarily applied as penalties in minor offenses
• restitution - requiring the offender to pay compensation to the victim.

In some jurisdictions, offenders may be sentenced to alternatives to incarceration that are considered more severe than straight probation but less severe than a prison term. Examples of such sanctions include boot camps, intense supervision often with drug treatment and testing, house arrest and electronic monitoring, denial of Federal benefits, and community service.

In many jurisdictions, the law mandates that persons convicted of certain types of offenses serve a prison term. Most jurisdictions permit the judge to set the sentence length within certain limits, but some have determinate sentencing laws that stipulate a specific sentence length that must be served and cannot be altered by a parole board.

Offenders sentenced to incarceration usually serve time in a local jail or a State prison. Offenders sentenced to less than 1 year generally go to jail; those sentenced to more than 1 year go to prison. Persons admitted to the Federal system or a State prison system may be held in prisons with varying levels of custody or in a community correctional facility.

A prisoner may become eligible for parole after serving a specific part of his or her sentence. Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner before the prisoner's full sentence has been served. The decision to grant parole is made by an authority such as a parole board, which has power to grant or revoke parole or to discharge a parolee altogether. The way parole decisions are made varies widely among jurisdictions.

Offenders may also be required to serve out their full sentences prior to release (expiration of term). Those sentenced under determinate sentencing laws can be released only after they have served their full sentence (mandatory release) less any "goodtime" received while in prison. Inmates get goodtime credits against their sentences automatically or by earning them through participation in programs.

If released by a parole board decision or by mandatory release, the releasee will be under the supervision of a parole officer in the community for the balance of his or her unexpired sentence. This supervision is governed by specific conditions of release, and the releasee may be returned to prison for violations of such conditions.

Once the suspects, defendants, or offenders are released from the jurisdiction of a criminal justice agency, they may be processed through the criminal justice system again for a new crime. Long term studies show that many suspects who are arrested have prior criminal histories and those with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to be arrested again. As the courts take prior criminal history into account at sentencing, most prison inmates have a prior criminal history and many have been incarcerated before. Nationally, about half the inmates released from State prison will return to prison.

For statistics on this subject, see --   Juvenile justice and facts and figures

The juvenile justice system

Juvenile courts usually have jurisdiction over matters concerning children, including delinquency, neglect, and adoption. They also handle "status offenses" such as truancy and running away, which are not applicable to adults. State statutes define which persons are under the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters is 17 in most States.

The processing of juvenile offenders is not entirely dissimilar to adult criminal processing, but there are crucial differences. Many juveniles are referred to juvenile courts by law enforcement officers, but many others are referred by school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, and even parents, for behavior or conditions that are determined to require intervention by the formal system for social control.

At arrest, a decision is made either to send the matter further into the justice system or to divert the case out of the system, often to alternative programs. Examples of alternative programs include drug treatment, individual or group counseling, or referral to educational and recreational programs.

When juveniles are referred to the juvenile courts, the court's intake department or the prosecuting attorney determines whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant filing a petition that requests an adjudicatory hearing or a request to transfer jurisdiction to criminal court. At this point, many juveniles are released or diverted to alternative programs.

All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances. In many States, the legislature statutorily excludes certain (usually serious) offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court regardless of the age of the accused. In some States and at the Federal level under certain circumstances, prosecutors have the discretion to either file criminal charges against juveniles directly in criminal courts or proceed through the juvenile justice process. The juvenile court's intake department or the prosecutor may petition the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction to criminal court. The juvenile court also may order referral to criminal court for trial as adults. In some jurisdictions, juveniles processed as adults may upon conviction be sentenced to either an adult or a juvenile facility.

In those cases where the juvenile court retains jurisdiction, the case may be handled formally by filing a delinquency petition or informally by diverting the juvenile to other agencies or programs in lieu of further court processing.

If a petition for an adjudicatory hearing is accepted, the juvenile may be brought before a court quite unlike the court with jurisdiction over adult offenders. Despite the considerable discretion associated with juvenile court proceedings, juveniles are afforded many of the due-process safeguards associated with adult criminal trials. Several States permit the use of juries in juvenile courts; however, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that juries are not essential to juvenile hearings, most States do not make provisions for juries in juvenile courts.

In disposing of cases, juvenile courts usually have far more discretion than adult courts. In addition to such options as probation, commitment to a residential facility, restitution, or fines, State laws grant juvenile courts the power to order removal of children from their homes to foster homes or treatment facilities. Juvenile courts also may order participation in special programs aimed at shoplifting prevention, drug counseling, or driver education.

Once a juvenile is under juvenile court disposition, the court may retain jurisdiction until the juvenile legally becomes an adult (at age 21in most States). In some jurisdictions, juvenile offenders may be classified as youthful offenders which can lead to extended sentences.

Following release from an institution, juveniles are often ordered to a period of aftercare which is similar to parole supervision for adult offenders. Juvenile offenders who violate the conditions of aftercare may have their aftercare revoked, resulting in being recommitted to a facility. Juveniles who are classified as youthful offenders and violate the conditions of aftercare may be subject to adult sanctions.

The structure of the justice system

The governmental response to crime is founded in the intergovernmental structure of the United States

Under our form of government, each State and the Federal Government has its own criminal justice system. All systems must respect the rights of individuals set forth in court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and defined in case law.

State constitutions and laws define the criminal justice system within each State and delegate the authority and responsibility for criminal justice to various jurisdictions, officials, and institutions. State laws also define criminal behavior and groups of children or acts under jurisdiction of the juvenile courts.

Municipalities and counties further define their criminal justice systems through local ordinances that proscribe the local agencies responsible for criminal justice processing that were not established by the State.

Congress has also established a criminal justice system at the Federal level to respond to Federal crimes such a bank robbery, kidnaping, and transporting stolen goods across State lines.

The response to crime is mainly a State and local function

Very few crimes are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The responsibility to respond to most crime rests with State and local governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns. Corrections is primarily a function of State governments. Most justice personnel are employed at the local level.

Discretion is exercised throughout the criminal justice system

Discretion is "an authority conferred by law to act in certain conditions or situations in accordance with an official's or an official agency's own considered judgment and conscience." 1  Discretion is exercised throughout the government. It is a part of decision-making in all government systems from mental health to education, as well as criminal justice. The limits of discretion vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Concerning crime and justice, legislative bodies have recognized that they cannot anticipate the range of circumstances surrounding each crime, anticipate local mores, and enact laws that clearly encompass all conduct that is criminal and all that is not. 2  Therefore, persons charged with the day-to-day response to crime are expected to exercise their own judgment within limits set by law. Basically, they must decide -

• whether to take action
• where the situation fits in the scheme of law, rules, and precedent
• which official response is appropriate. 3

To ensure that discretion is exercised responsibly, government authority is often delegated to professionals. Professionalism requires a minimum level of training and orientation, which guide officials in making decisions. The professionalism of policing is due largely to the desire to ensure the proper exercise of police discretion.

The limits of discretion vary from State to State and locality to locality. For example, some State judges have wide discretion in the type of sentence they may impose. In recent years other States have sought to limit the judges discretion in sentencing by passing mandatory sentencing laws that require prison sentences for certain offenses.

1  Roscoe Pound, "Discretion, dispensation and mitigation: The problem of the individual special case," New York University Law Review (1960) 35:925, 926.

2  Wayne R. LaFave, Arrest: The decision to take a suspect into custody (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1964), p. 63-184.

3  Memorandum of June 21, 1977, from Mark Moore to James Vorenberg, "Some abstract notes on the issue of discretion."

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

Here's how you know

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

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

NCJRS Virtual Library

American criminal justice - a review essay, additional details.

1331 17th Street , Suite 403 , Denver , CO 80202 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

New Essay Collection from Columbia University Press Offers Latest and Best Thinking on Criminal Justice, and What Must Be Done 

New Essay Collection from Columbia University Press Offers Latest and Best Thinking on Criminal Justice, and What Must Be Done 

Edited by the Brennan Center’s Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Excessive Punishment is a reality check on crime and justice in 2024

• Changing Incentives
• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Prison and Jail Reform
• Social & Economic Harm

Anti-mass incarceration efforts have succeeded in bringing reform without sacrificing public safety, but an overreliance on punitive responses have limited their impact, especially for people of color

Contributors include Paul Butler, Alexes Harris, Michael Mendoza, Nkechi Taifa, Bruce Western

Today Columbia University Press published Excessive Punishment: How the Justice System Creates Mass Incarceration . Lauren-Brooke Eisen , director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, solicited 38 essays from criminal justice scholars, practitioners, and advocates, as well as former law enforcement and people who have experienced incarceration. 

“The noise and disinformation about crime is hitting its usual election-year peak. This book cuts through all that,” says Eisen. “It shows that public safety, justice, and fairness are compatible goals that must be achieved together if they are to be achieved at all. The current dominant method— the blend of mass incarceration and perpetual punishment – has failed on all three counts: public safety, justice, and fairness.”

The contributors to the collection include Paul Butler , Jennifer Chacón , Khalil Cumberbatch , Alexes Harris , Michael Mendoza , Nkechi Taifa ,  Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western , and many others (complete list below). They delve into the unfinished work of the criminal justice reform movement. Why does so much of the criminal justice system remain locked on overincarceration? How do factors like structural racism and economic incentives work against commonsense reforms?   A sampling:

• “ Race, Mass Incarceration, and the Disastrous War on Drugs ” by Nkechi Taifa, civil rights attorney
• “ Monetary Sanctions as a Pound of Flesh ” by Alexes Harris, University of Washington
• “ Providing Hope and Freedom to Overpunished People: Where Both Seem Impossible to Achieve ” by David Singleton, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
• “ Addressing Violent Crime More Effectively ” by David Alan Sklansky, Stanford Law School
• “ The Inhumanity of Solitary Confinement ” by Christopher Blackwell, who is incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center in Washington state

The book has earned advance praise for its depth, scope, and solutions from U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner (ret.), Judith Resnik (Yale), Emily Bazelon ( The New York Times Magazine ), James Cadogan (National Basketball Social Justice Coalition), and more. (Their comments are below.) 

On Wednesday, April 3 , at 9 p.m. ET/6 p.m. PT, the Brennan Center along with the Commonwealth Club of California and The Last Mile will host a panel at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (live-streamed as well) to discuss the themes and questions raised by Excessive Punishment . Eisen will be joined by fellow contributor Michael Mendoza, along with retired Superior Court of Northern California Judge LaDoris Cordell , Kevin McCracken of The Last Mile, and Ken Oliver of the Checkr Foundation. To RSVP for an in-person spot or for the live stream, please email John Zipperer at the Commonwealth Club. 

On Wednesday, April 17 , at 3 p.m. ET, the Brennan Center will also host a live, virtual event. Eisen will moderate a conversation with fellow contributors Jeremy Travis of the Columbia Justice Lab , Khalil Cumberbatch of the Council on Criminal Justice, and Nkechi Taifa , a civil rights attorney. RSVP here . Excessive Punishment will be the subject of other upcoming events. Please email Derek Rosenfeld to find out more.

In addition to leading the criminal justice work at the Brennan Center, Eisen is a former prosecutor and the author of Inside Private Prisons (Columbia, 2017).

Advance Praise for Excessive Punishment

“This book weaves a path toward reform of the fragmented system of criminal punishment in the United States, which produces too many harms and too little safety for anyone. Essays brilliantly distill the histories of control and racism, and they map how to reorient interactions on streets, in prisons, and after release to recognize the political voice and social worth of all members of the country.” –   Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School

“This book breaks through the tropes about what it takes for our criminal legal system to ensure public safety; it smashes the generalizations that have fueled our failed experiment in mass incarceration for the past several decades. And it does so with experts of all kinds—scholars, activists, practitioners—who chronicle how our system went off the rails and, more important, how to fix it.” –  U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner (ret.)

“This book brings together an amazing array of contributors to outline the biggest problems with American conceptions and implementation of punishment—and also to propose solutions.” –  Emily Bazelon , author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration and staff writer, The New York Times Magazine

“In 2020, millions of Americans came together in an unprecedented call for a more just society. This collection of essays by some of the country’s foremost thinkers continues that work—helping us understand the history of our carceral system and offering a blueprint for how we can create safe, healthy, and thriving communities from coast to coast.” – James Cadogan , executive director, National Basketball Social Justice Coalition

“As someone who endured fourteen years within the confines of federal prison, I have witnessed the stark and often brutal realities of our criminal justice system. Excessive Punishment is a beacon of insight onto the cycle of mass incarceration that grips our nation.” – Louis L. Reed , activist and film producer

Contributors to Excessive Punishment

Related Issues:

• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Social & Economic Harm

How Profit Shapes the Bail Bond System

The for-profit bail bond industry is an overlooked but significant factor in pushback against attempts to reform or end the cash bail system.

DeSantis’s Suspension of Orlando-Area Prosecutor Is Counterproductive Justice Policy

State Attorney Monique Worrell was elected running on evidence-based reforms.

America's Dystopian Incarceration System of Pay to Stay Behind Bars

To reduce unnecessary incarceration, focus on public safety and prison reduction, a new idea on justice reform, the federal government must incentivize states to incarcerate fewer people, criminal justice reform halfway through the biden administration, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Footnote leads to exploration of start of for-profit prisons in N.Y.

Should NATO step up role in Russia-Ukraine war?

It’s on Facebook, and it’s complicated

The costs of inequality: a goal of justice, a reality of unfairness.

Current system produces huge prison population, lengthy sentences, but little proof of deterrence

Colleen Walsh

Harvard Staff Writer

Fifth in a series on what Harvard scholars are doing to identify and understand inequality, in seeking solutions to one of America’s most vexing problems.

When starting a semester, Harvard Law School (HLS) Professor Carol Steiker likes to ask her first-year criminal law students to describe what they think are the biggest societal changes of the past 40 years. The students often cite the rise of social media, or global warming, or same-sex marriage.

Then it’s Steiker’s turn. “I show them the statistics,” said Steiker, the School’s Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law, “and they are stunned.”

Her numbers show mass incarceration in the United States. Beginning in the 1970s, the prison population began swelling, climbing steadily through 2009. Now, this nation imprisons more of its residents, 2.2 million, than any other. The United States jails a quarter of the world’s prisoners, although it contains only 5 percent of the world’s population. The statistics are sobering for a republic that celebrates justice, fairness, and equality as the granite pillars of its democracy.

America’s prison system produces other stark numbers. “You just look at our prisons and jails,” said Steiker, “and they are overwhelmingly filled with poor people and people of color.”

Some analysts call that sky-high incarceration rate this era’s Civil Rights issue, and say the justice system warehouses inmates, damages families, and hollows communities. The system must be repaired, they argue, if everyday life is to reflect the nation’s aspirational core values.

According to Bruce Western, Harvard sociology professor and the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy, about two-thirds of African-American men with low levels of schooling will go to prison during their lifetimes. Most inmates are minority men under age 40 “whose economic opportunities have suffered the most over the last 30 or 40 years. Incarceration in the United States is socially concentrated among very disadvantaged people.”

In addition, the Internet age, a boon in so many ways, can make life worse for former inmates, since a person’s criminal record is often accessible now with the click of a mouse. “And so as marginalizing as the experience of incarceration used to be,” said Western, “it’s even more so now.”

The U.S. imprisons more of its residents, 2.2 million people, than any other country in the world. Almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners are held in American prisons.

The roots of America’s mass-incarceration policies are tangled in history, politics, social conflict, and inequality. It’s a pretzel-logic labyrinth, and to solve it or even simplify it, analysts say, will require sweeping, head-on reforms.

One overarching way to reduce America’s urban crime problem would be to chip away at its root causes, analysts say, starting with helping the millions of Americans overwhelmed and made desperate by poverty. It’s a simple but often forgotten fact that people without education, jobs, housing, or hope commit most crimes. Harvard scholars say that a broad-brush campaign to target crime would include effective social services, early education initiatives, access to health care and mental health services, and more housing and job opportunities.

“Before anybody’s had contact with law enforcement, they’ve had contact with schools, with jobs, either getting them or not, with the health care system and the housing systems, all of which suffer from many of the same and sometimes even worse forms of bias than does law enforcement,” said Phillip Atiba Goff, a visiting scholar at the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) who leads an effort to collect nationwide data on police behavior.

“What we are frequently picking up on is not the prejudice or discrimination by law enforcement, but rather the symptoms of a society that is still sickened and toxified by the prejudices and discrimination of our current society, and from generations past.”

The criminal justice system

When it comes to the criminal justice system, analysts say that reducing inequality significantly would require an overhaul of the nation’s sentencing system, better diversion and prevention programs, prison reforms, more effective policing policies and training, and comprehensive support for former prisoners trying to mold stable lives.

In recent decades, historians and experts say, national crime policies have veered toward harsher punishments, but not more effective ones.

Some analysts trace the soaring spike in the nation’s prison population to President Ronald Reagan’s expansion of the war on drugs. But others say it began earlier. Elizabeth Hinton, an assistant professor of African and African-American studies at Harvard, argues that the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, a champion of civil rights, set the stage for expanded incarceration.

Johnson’s progressive social policies never had the staying power of his anti-crime programs, Hinton said, such as initiatives that gave surplus military weapons to police departments. That equipment, plus federal funds for law enforcement, helped lead to increased surveillance and incarceration, she said.

“Ronald Reagan and subsequent administrations stepped into a bureaucracy and a crime-control infrastructure that was created and directed by the Lyndon Johnson administration,” said Hinton, whose upcoming book will examine the connections between the rise of America’s “carceral state” and Johnson’s anti-poverty programs.

“The prison population spike that we see in the ’80s was made possible by these earlier policies, and the ways in which crime-control programs and social welfare programs end up becoming entangled.”

Prior to that period, many federal programs had emphasized crime prevention. Johnson and President John Kennedy, for instance, had backed building urban recreational facilities to bring residents together with social workers, police, and probation officers, while avoiding stigmatizing neighborhood teens as delinquents. But those early efforts eventually backfired, Hinton said, casting “low-income youth — whose families are on welfare, who live in public housing projects, who attend urban public schools, and who have family members with arrest records — as potentially delinquent.”

When the programs, which had been run by social workers, were gradually defunded, the police took on administering what was left of them. That shift gave officers “more and more opportunities to supervise a population they saw as troublesome,” said Hinton. By President Jimmy Carter’s administration, Hinton said, the social welfare programs had almost entirely “vanished from the urban landscape,” replaced by services involving “police officers and law enforcement institutions.”

Achieving neither

The increasingly crime-conscious 1980s brought a wave of legislation aimed at making sentencing fairer and streets safer, but which succeeded, many critics argue, at achieving neither.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, enacted a sweeping revision of the criminal code. The legislation established the U.S. Sentencing Commission and tasked it with providing guidelines to federal courts — a radical shift in policy, since judges previously had wide discretion in sentencing. The commission introduced mandatory sentencing for various crimes and eliminated federal parole for some cases, immediately boosting prison rolls.

About two-thirds of African-American men with low levels of schooling will go to prison in their lifetime.

Instead of improving fairness in sentencing, as was intended, the new system wound up promoting inequality, says HLS lecturer Nancy Gertner, herself a former federal judge. Judges suddenly had to hand down standard sentences to those convicted of some specified crimes who had particular criminal histories.

“You couldn’t focus on their mental state, you couldn’t focus on family background, you couldn’t focus on drug addiction, you couldn’t focus on all the things that had been terribly important previously, and should have been important,” she said.

The Reagan administration’s crackdown on drugs also drove up the incarceration rate and helped lock in a disparity in the expanding prison population, she said. Many analysts connected the rise in crime to the rise in use of cocaine, including the crystal form known as crack that was popular in minority communities. Reagan’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 ushered in mandatory sentencing rules for drug crimes. But the new mandates were inherently unequal. An offender would need to have 100 grams of powdered cocaine to receive the same sentence as someone possessing one gram of crack.

“The same substance that was being used in the white community was being punished much less harshly than the substance that’s being used in the black community,” said Gertner. “That set the tone for an extraordinary racial disparity baked into this structure.”

Sentences grew stiffer, but analysts agree they never led to a significant drop in crime. The crime rate, an analysis shows, began dropping before the number of prisoners skyrocketed. Most telling, the rate also dropped in places without punitive policies.

Western, who is also director of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, has been studying prison populations for years. Just as striking as the scale of the American penal system, he says, is its lopsided distribution across the population. Those jailed are overwhelmingly minority men, often African-Americans with little schooling. According to Western, one in eight African-American men born just after World War II who didn’t go to college spent time in prison. For those born in the late 1970s, the statistics are worse, with 36 percent going to prison. If they had dropped out of high school, the percentage jumped to 70.

“The expansion of the criminal justice system was a response not just to the problem of crime, but to a whole array of social problems associated with the uniquely harsh conditions of American poverty,” said Western, “and the communities that were dealing with those social problems were disproportionately minority.”

Those everyday problems — including unstable housing, slim job prospects, and inferior health care — are often waiting just outside the prison walls for inmates returning to society.

Western is now analyzing data from a study in which he tracked the lives of 122 men and women who left prison and moved back to their Boston neighborhoods. He said the study’s most striking finding was that most who leave prison go straight back to poverty. In addition, many have lives “surrounded by a cloud of violence.”

“In many cases they were victims of violence, they were witnesses to violence. And certainly as they got older, they were violent offenders as well.”

Another key finding, said Western, was the high number of former inmates who have mental illness or addiction issues. The research recommended installing robust community-based programs and services to ease ex-prisoners’ transitions and dissuade their return to crime.

Not surprisingly, analysts say that stable employment is one of the best predictors of former inmates’ success, yet getting jobs can prove quite difficult with a criminal record. Studies have found that wary employers routinely discriminate against job applicants who have been imprisoned.

Former inmates need not apply

In 2001 and 2004, Devah Pager, a Harvard professor of sociology and public policy, hired young men to pose as job applicants in New York City and Milwaukee. She gave the participants fake backstories and identical levels of schooling and work histories. But she also instructed subjects from each team to tell potential employers that they had been convicted of drug felonies and had spent 18 months in prison.

“No surprise, a criminal record had a huge impact on their hiring outcomes,” said Pager. “The applicants with criminal records received about half as many callbacks or job offers, relative to equally qualified applicants who had no criminal background.”

In addition, a former inmate’s race played an outsized role in the hiring process.

“The criminal justice system really casts a shadow over all black men and strengthens that association between blackness and criminality in a way that affects the entire black population, especially the entire black male population.” Devah Pager

African-American participants paid bigger penalties for having criminal records than whites did, receiving fewer interviews and offers. Most unsettling, a black applicant with a clear record fared no better than a white applicant just released from prison.

Pager said her findings suggest that “being black in America today is sort of like having a felony conviction in terms of how employers view these applicants … The criminal justice system really casts a shadow over all black men and strengthens that association between blackness and criminality in a way that affects the entire black population, especially the entire black male population.”

Pager’s more recent research looks at how people with criminal records perform in the military. The results indicate that former inmates actually tend to advance more quickly and receive more promotions than other enlistees.

“Employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders because they fear individuals with criminal records may perform badly or cause harm in the workplace,” said Pager. “Unfortunately, there is no existing evidence with which to evaluate these concerns. We look to the military as a test case, as America’s largest employer. The fact that ex-offenders perform as well, if not better, than their counterparts without criminal records suggests that employers’ concerns may be exaggerated.

“I take that to be a really encouraging sign,” she added. “With appropriate screening, these are individuals who perform very well on the job.”

The problem of young offenders

The penal system can prove particularly damaging to youthful offenders. Researchers say that judicial officials who punish teens and even those in their early 20s as adults are turning their backs on the proven science of brain development and the rehabilitation options available in juvenile courts.

“Most people who have a felony career start before they are 25, and most people, thankfully, age out at 25,” said Vinny Schiraldi, senior research fellow at the HKS Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management and former commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation. “So if we can get you past 25 without having a felony conviction, the chances of you ever having a felony conviction drop substantially.”

Schiraldi and Western support raising the age limit of juvenile courts to 21 or even 25, and they are using the latest neuroscience research to make their case. They cite work by Laurence Steinberg at Temple University, who has shown that the 18- to 25-year-old-brain isn’t fully mature. Teenagers and young adults are still developing reasoning and judgment, said Schiraldi.

“They are more impulsive, particularly in emotionally charged settings, less future-oriented, more peer-influenced, and are greater risk-takers. All of those things impact criminality. And so if you believe that we should have a juvenile system, which most people do, and you believe that young adults are more similar to juveniles than to more fully mature adults, and they are, then it stands to reason that we should have more protections for them and a special approach.

“I think if done right,” added Schiraldi, “such systems, implemented nationally, could have a substantial impact on reducing mass incarceration and equalizing the playing field.”

“Most people who have a felony career start before they are 25, and most people, thankfully, age out at 25. So if we can get you past 25 without having a felony conviction, the chances of you ever having a felony conviction drop substantially.” Vinny Schiraldi

Then there is the issue involving those who haven’t even begun prison sentences yet. Many thousands are consigned to local jails while awaiting trial or sentencing, or while serving short sentences. For many of them, posting bail is a challenge or even an impossibility.

“Someone’s inability to make bail or inability to pay a relatively modest fine or fee can spiral into years of incarceration, being jailed repeatedly, and having the fines and fees grow and grow,” said Steiker. “It can destroy people’s ability to work and to live their lives simply because they lack the funds to pay bail or a fine or a fee.”

In addition, court systems around the country increasingly are outsourcing their probation operations to private firms that make money by charging offenders extra fees.

“The private company may have little or no interest in achieving justice,” said Jacob Lipton, who leads Harvard’s Systemic Justice Project along with HLS Professor Jon Hanson.

Rising solitary confinement

In tandem with the incarceration rate, the use of solitary confinement in America has skyrocketed over the past two decades.

A recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics said that nearly 20 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 18 percent of local jail inmates have spent time in restrictive conditions, including disciplinary or administrative segregation or solitary confinement.

Research routinely shows that solitary can produce devastating psychological effects, including panic attacks, hallucinations, depression, mood swings, and even suicide. Solitary confinement “drives men mad,” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said during a visit to HLS last year during which he disparaged the criminal justice system for the practice, as well as for overcrowding and too-lengthy sentences.

Then there is the hot-button topic of police relations with minority communities. A number of civilian deaths during interactions with police in Ferguson, Mo., Staten Island, N.Y., Cleveland, and Baltimore have put the discussion about comprehensive policing reform in the national spotlight.

It’s a conversation, argues Goff, that is desperate for big data. Massive, complex computer studies in recent years have transformed business, science, and government. Some analysts think that big data could be a game-changer for police departments to increase their effectiveness.

“Right now, we are a single blind person feeling at the middle of the elephant, with no clue of where the edges are. That’s because we don’t have any national-level data on police behavior,” said Goff.

“The use of solitary confinement is a brutal aspect of American incarceration.” Bruce Western

An associate professor of social psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, Goff is co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity, a think tank that promotes police transparency and accountability. He helped to establish the first database with national statistics on police behavior. Currently working with 50 law enforcement agencies, Goff and his team are compiling information on police stops and the use of force. By comparing broad sets of information on police behavior, Goff and his researchers hope to identify and correct racial disparities in policing. He said that many police departments are eager for such information because they want to do a better job.

“They want it,” he said. “They are asking for it.”

Goff hopes that recommendations from President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, created in the wake of Ferguson and other tragedies, will help. Important steps toward reform could include placing a limit on the minimum size of police departments, ensuring civilian oversight of policing, addressing implicit bias in police training, and adopting proportionality standards for the use of force.

“It’s not a proportionality standard that says, ‘I can use force proportional to what you use against me,’” said Goff, “but rather a standard that says, ‘I can use force proportional to the crime that you were suspected of committing in the first place.’ If you think about some of the recent incidents that have caused so much outrage, they have been in part because the consequence of the infraction was death, but the infraction was so minor: selling loose cigarettes, failing to signal, running away from law enforcement. None of these things should result in a death sentence.”

Goff supports using video cameras to tape police actions, and he said the momentum toward them seems inevitable. He sees video as a positive development that most police officers want. “Having gone on patrol with officers, I understand why. They are going to be better protected from crazy accusations that residents make.” But Goff cautions that body cameras also raise privacy concerns.

Some solutions, great and small

There are other proposed solutions, great and small, that could reduce judicial inequality.

Western proposes improving treatment programs and services for at-risk people. Breaking the pipeline to prison, he and other analysts say, would require early and continued social interventions, particularly deflecting future possible offenders from the path to crime when they’re young.

“People are often dealing in a sustained way with all sorts of problems that are largely beyond their control, that have to do with their home environments, their neighborhoods. Our data suggest we need to be thinking about interventions that are sustained through childhood, and measures that can help stabilize the home lives of at-risk kids in a sustained way,” Western said.

Support programs for addicts and the mentally ill also could curb the prison population, analysts say. Expanded “specialty treatment courts” could divert defendants into aid programs rather than warehousing incarceration.

For Pager, reform advocate Glenn Martin’s program to train ex-offenders to become political and social leaders in their own communities offers promise. That type of effort “puts a new face on who these individuals are,” she said, “and on what they are capable of, and what they are advocating for.”

“In drug court, the idea is to get drug offenders help and have them successfully complete a treatment plan rather than go to prison,” said Steiker. “The same thing is true for mental illness courts that attempt to deal with people whose crimes are the product of untreated illness. You establish a treatment plan and try to get them the services and support they need, rather than punishment. The idea is to take a therapeutic rehabilitative approach, rather than a punitive approach in the first instance.”

As an alternative to incarceration, Gertner pointed to programs like Roca, “rock” in Spanish, a Boston nonprofit that works with teens and young adults. Roca’s “cognitive-restructuring and skills-development intervention” and intensive outreach have helped move some young people away from violence and poverty, she said.

Possible solutions to judicial inequality

• End to mandatory sentences
• Juvenile courts open at least to age 21
• Equalized drug-case sentencing
• Bail that factors in circumstances
• Community service in lieu of jail
• Treatment rather than sentencing
• Post-prison job support
• Effective social services
• Medical and mental health care
• Reductions in poverty, hopelessness

“It’s an experimental period,” she said about being young, “and the notion is that we have to enable that experiment because the other experiment in mass incarceration was an abject failure.”

Some analysts say that the penal system should reconsider how it treats violent offenders, including re-examining life sentences. “We are going to have to talk about the kinds of sentences we give to people who commit violent crimes,” said Steiker. “Those sentences are vastly longer here in our country than they are, for example, in Europe, and that has to be on the table too.”

Interestingly, both major political parties have found rare common ground on some of these issues and are looking with fresh eyes at the burgeoning prison problem and the failure of long-held policies to reduce criminal behavior. Increasingly, officials are realizing that some policies are worsening the situation. So a movement toward change is taking hold.

In October, the Justice Department began releasing 6,000 inmates early, in keeping with the Sentencing Commission’s retroactive reduction of maximum sentences for drug offenders, announced in 2014. In his final State of the Union address in January, President Obama said, “I hope we can work together on bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform.”

Many Democratic and Republican senators are backing a measure called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act that would soften federal sentencing guidelines. Supporters hope that the bill will reach the full Senate this year.

Hinton says that lessons from the past could help improve the future. For instance, allowing communities to have a voice in neighborhood programs, an early success in the war on poverty, could be weaved into policing today.

“I think part of the first step is really trusting people in low-income communities to devise ways to keep their communities safe,” Hinton said. “Everybody wants to live in a safe community, but there’s never been a moment where grassroots residents really had the power to do that, and were entrusted to do that by federal policymakers.

“And if we want to redefine the role of police in terms of providing educational and social welfare programs, there needs to be a whole new level of training and an entirely new incentive structure within departments,” Hinton said, “so that police are equipped to offer those kinds of services and are rewarded for their role in fostering social welfare as much as they are for meeting arrest quotas.”

Softening rigid and unjust sentencing guidelines, Gertner says, would require a judicial overhaul. She favors eliminating mandatory minimums, restoring discretion in sentencing, and offering judges a robust menu of options from a list of evidence-based rehabilitative initiatives.

“The disparity concerns of 20 years ago were not illegitimate, but the way to deal with disparity in sentencing is by coming up with programs that we have validated and tested, programs that we have legitimized,” said Gertner. “Going forward, we have to look at things differently.”

Former inmates clearly need help establishing themselves as productive citizens, analysts say, and clues suggest what works there as well. For instance, most former Massachusetts inmates are immediately enrolled in MassHealth, said Western, since stable medical care is a key to successful re-entry. Implementing a similar effort nationally, perhaps through Medicaid, could play an important role in successful transitions.

Steady employment is also vital. Western cited studies showing that prisoners in low-security facilities who were allowed to work during the day often retained those work-release jobs after finishing their sentences.

“This continuity of employment and the savings provided by the work-release job are important for community return,” he said.

Informed screenings could help to change the hiring landscape, said Pager, by encouraging employers to heed U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines. The commission asks that companies consider applicants with criminal records, and says that relevant factors in hiring include the time that has elapsed since a conviction, the evidence of rehabilitation, and the relationship between the crime and the open job.

The goal is to encourage employers to conduct “a whole-person review,” said Pager.

A better way on bail

On the issue of fair bail, analysts suggest better screening to determine whether someone can afford a fine before it’s imposed, and community service alternatives for those who don’t have money, said Lipton. The role of private probation companies also should be scrutinized and limited, he said.

“I think part of the first step is really trusting people in low-income communities to devise ways to keep their communities safe.” Elizabeth Hinton

Some lawyers are challenging the constitutionality of jailing people simply because they can’t afford to pay fees. If a senior court ruled against the practice and required states to develop a better system, that decision could propel change, Lipton said. “But it remains to be seen whether there will actually be serious steps taken to reduce some of these penalties and reset the norms back down to somewhere that I would say is more reasonable,” Lipton said.

Western sees hope in reducing the mind-numbing practice of solitary confinement. Some correctional leaders have admitted “they need to re-examine the way in which solitary confinement is used in American prisons,” Western said. Obama recently announced a ban on solitary for juveniles in federal prisons.

“The use of solitary confinement is a brutal aspect of American incarceration. In Europe, severe isolation is used for hours at a time, but we use it for months and sometimes years,” said Western.

“But the pendulum may be swinging away.”

Illustration by Kathleen M.G. Howlett.

Next Tuesday: Gender-based inequality

Share this article

You might like.

Historian traces 19th-century murder case that brought together historical figures, helped shape American thinking on race, violence, incarceration

National security analysts outline stakes ahead of July summit

‘Spermworld’ documentary examines motivations of prospective parents, volunteer donors who connect through private group page 

Six receive honorary degrees

Harvard recognizes educator, conductor, theoretical physicist, advocate for elderly, writer, and Nobel laureate

Five alumni elected to the Board of Overseers

Six others join Alumni Association board

Everything counts!

New study finds step-count and time are equally valid in reducing health risks