problems with the criminal justice system essay

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

Criminal Justice Reform Is More than Fixing Sentencing

Experts explain how we got here and solutions that will benefit everyone.

• Changing Incentives
• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations

A single criminal conviction bars a person for life from calling a bingo game in New York State. Before you chuckle at this gratuitous prohibition, take a second to appreciate the wider context: this is one of 27,000 (!) rules nationwide barring people with criminal records from obtaining a professional license. Conviction of a crime excludes people from holding jobs from real estate appraiser to massage therapist.

In our work to end mass incarceration, the Brennan Center has focused on the length of prison sentences. As our studies have shown, 39 percent of those in prison are there without a current public safety rationale. But the reach of our criminal justice system — its inefficiencies and its unfairness — extends far beyond the time an individual is incarcerated.

We all have a stake, for example, in making sure that a person leaving prison can reintegrate into society. Instead, we throw up barriers. Getting a job, even one that does not require a professional license, becomes extremely challenging. Studies show that a criminal conviction reduces the likelihood of getting a job callback by 50 percent for a white applicant and nearly two-thirds for a black applicant. These long odds have serious consequences. Finding work is the keystone to getting housing, becoming a contributing family member, and living an independent life.

Since many people are convicted of crimes when young, the negative effects reverberate for decades. The annual reduction in income that accompanies a criminal conviction rises from $7,000 initially to over $20,000 later in life.

Today crime is rising. Public safety must be a paramount goal. When violence cascades, it affects and hurts poor and marginalized communities most. As Alvin Bragg, the new Manhattan district attorney, put it so well, “The two goals of justice and safety are not opposed to each other. They are inextricably linked.” 

Progress toward criminal justice reform was made possible, in part, by the fact that crime rates were falling for decades. Now, rising crime again creates the conditions where demagogic politics and unwise policies can recur — with potentially crushing social, economic, and racial consequences. So we need to think anew, to make sure that the reaction to rising crime does not provoke a policy response that produces neither safety nor fairness.  

A year ago, the Brennan Center set out to broaden the national discussion about criminal justice reform. Since then, through our Punitive Excess series , we have published 25 essays by diverse authors ranging from scholars to formerly incarcerated people. The ill-considered collateral consequences of criminal conviction is just one of many topics, which also include perverse financial incentives in the system, inhumane prison conditions, racism, the treatment of child offenders, and more. 

It is a trove of analysis and scholarship that deserves your attention. Today we published the concluding essay , which surveys the damage from heavy-handed tactics and offers alternatives that empower communities. We also released a new video exploring the problems caused by excessive punishment. I hope you will read, view, and share widely. 

Related Issues:

• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations

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.

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

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

Charis e. kubrin.

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

Rebecca Tublitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Rationales of Punishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Narratives of Criminal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Policy Talk: Framing Problems, Shaping Possible Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Equity-Consciousness in Policy Formulation

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

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

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

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

V. Putting It Together: Modeling the Policy Change Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biographies

is Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of California, Irvine. Among other topics, her research examines the impact of criminal justice reform on crime rates. Professor Kubrin has received several national awards including the Ruth Shonle Cavan Young Scholar Award from the American Society of Criminology (for outstanding scholarly contributions to the discipline of criminology); the W.E.B. DuBois Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for significant contributions to racial and ethnic issues in the field of criminology); and the Paul Tappan Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for outstanding contributions to the field of criminology). In 2019, she was named a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology.

, M.P.P. is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine. Her research explores criminal justice reform, inequality, courts, and corrections. She has over 10 years of experience working with state and local governments to conduct applied research, program evaluation, and technical assistance in criminal justice and corrections. Her work has appeared in the peer-reviewed journals Justice Quarterly and PLOS One.

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

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Charis E. Kubrin, Email: ude.icu@nirbukc .

Rebecca Tublitz, Email: ude.icu@ztilbutr .

• Agan, A. & Starr, S. (2018) Ban the box criminal records and racial discrimination: A field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133 (1), 191–235. 10.1093/qje/qjx028
• Ahrens DM. Retroactive legality: Marijuana convictions and restorative justice in an era of criminal justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2020; 110 :379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson CN, Wooldredge J, Cochran JC. Can “race-neutral” program eligibility requirements in criminal justice have disparate effects? An examination of race, ethnicity, and prison industry employment. Criminology & Public Policy. 2022; 21 :405–432. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aviram H. Cheap on Crime: Recession-era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment. University of California Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bales WD, Piquero AR. Racial/Ethnic differentials in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Quarterly. 2012; 29 :742–773. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.659674. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barak G. Media, process, and the social construction of crime. Garland; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartos BJ, Kubrin CE. Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety? Findings from California's Prop 47. Criminology & Public Policy. 2018; 17 :693–715. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12378. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and instability in American politics. 2. University of Chicago Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett, K. (2018). The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 , 235–259.
• Beckett K, Reosti A, Knaphus E. The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2016; 664 :238–259. doi: 10.1177/0002716215598973. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett, K., Beach, L., Knaphus, E., & Reosti, A. (2018). US criminal justice policy and practice in the twenty‐first century: Toward the end of mass incarceration?. Law & Policy, 40 (4), 321–345. 10.1111/lapo.12113
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 611–639.
• Ben-Yehuda N. The politics and morality of deviance. State University of New York Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology knowledge. Anchor Books; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard TJ, Paoline EA, III, Pare PP. General systems theory and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2005; 33 :203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birkland TA. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blomberg T, Brancale J, Beaver K, Bales W. Advancing criminology & criminal justice policy. Routledge; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Currie Elliott. Against marginality. Theoretical Criminology. 2007; 11 (2):175–190. doi: 10.1177/1362480607075846. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 2007; 10 :103–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chouhy C, Swagar N, Brancale J, Noorman K, Siennick SE, Caswell J, Blomberg TG. Forecasting the racial and ethnic impacts of ‘race-neutral’ legislation through researcher and policymaker partnerships. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s12103-021-09619-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Criminal justice theories and ideologies. In Reaffirming rehabilitation (pp. 27–44). Andersen.
• Dabney DA, Page J, Topalli V. American bail and the tinting of criminal justice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2017; 56 :397–418. doi: 10.1111/hojo.12212. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly EA. The politics of racial disparity reform: Racial inequality and criminal justice policymaking in the states. Am J Crim Just. 2017; 42 :1–27. doi: 10.1007/s12103-016-9344-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunbar, A. (2022). Arguing for criminal justice reform: Examining the effects of message framing on policy preferences. Justice Quarterly . 10.1080/07418825.2022.2038243
• Eckhouse L, Lum K, Conti-Cook C, Ciccolini J. Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2019; 46 :185–209. doi: 10.1177/0093854818811379. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gamson WA. Talking politics. Cambridge University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garland D. Sociological Perspectives on Punishment. Crime and Justice. 1991; 14 :115–165. doi: 10.1086/449185. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garland D. The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman P, Page J, Phelps M. Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice. Oxford University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottlieb A. The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency. 2017; 63 :636–656. doi: 10.1177/0011128716687758. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottschalk M. Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gramlich J. America’s incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995. Pew Research Center; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grattet R, Jenness V. Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces. 2008; 87 :501–527. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gusfield JR. Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. University of Illinois Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagan J, Hewitt JD, Alwin DF. Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces. 1979; 58 :506–527. doi: 10.2307/2577603. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haney C. Criminal justice and the nineteenth-century paradigm: The triumph of psychological individualism in the ‘Formative Era’ Law and Human Behavior. 1982; 6 :191–235. doi: 10.1007/BF01044295. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head BW, Alford J. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society. 2015; 47 :711–739. doi: 10.1177/0095399713481601. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp 17–53). Routledge.
• Hinton E, Henderson L, Reed C. An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson S. Countering catastrophic criminology. Punishment & Society. 2006; 8 :443–467. doi: 10.1177/1462474506067567. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismaili K. Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2006; 17 :255–269. doi: 10.1177/0887403405281559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins P. Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in Modern America. Yale University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenness V. Explaining criminalization: From demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004; 30 :147–171. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BD, Lee JG. Racial disparity under sentencing guidelines: A survey of recent research and emerging perspectives. Sociology Compass. 2013; 7 :503–514. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaeble, D. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.
• Kang-Brown J, Subramanian R. Out of sight: The growth of jails in rural America. Vera Institute of Justice; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingdon, J. W. (2011[1995]). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . Harper Collins.
• Kraska PB, Brent JJ. Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. 2. Waveland Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kubrin CE. Secure or insecure communities?: Seven reasons to abandon the secure communities program. Criminology & Public Policy. 2014; 13 :323–338. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurlychek MC, Johnson BD. Cumulative disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019; 2 :291–319. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024815. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD, Spohn CC. Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology. 2014; 52 :514–551. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin B. The consensus myth in criminal justice reform. Michigan Law Review. 2018; 117 :259. doi: 10.36644/mlr.117.2.consensus. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofstrom, M., Martin, B., & Raphael, S. (2019). The effect of sentencing reform on racial and ethnic disparities in involvement with the criminal justice system: The case of California's Proposition 47 (University of California, Working Paper).
• Lynch, M. (2011). Mass incarceration legal change and locale. Criminology & Public Policy , 10(3), 673–698. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00733.x
• MacDonald J, Raphael S. Effect of scaling back punishment on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy. 2020; 19 :1139–1164. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12495. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauer M. Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Crime Law. 2007; 5 (19):33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP. American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. Cambridge University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP. Out-of-control criminal justice: The systems improvement solution for more safety, justice, accountability, and efficiency. Cambridge University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears, D. P. (2022). Bridging the research-policy divide to advance science and policy: The 2022 Bruce Smith, Sr. award address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Evaluation Journal , 1–23.
• Menefee MR. The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass. 2018; 12 :e12576. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller LL. The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control. Oxford University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell O. A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2005; 21 :439–466. doi: 10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mooney AC, Giannella E, Glymour MM, Neilands TB, Morris MD, Tulsky J, Sudhinaraset M. Racial/ethnic disparities in arrests for drug possession after California proposition 47, 2011–2016. American Journal of Public Health. 2018; 108 :987–993. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304445. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mooney, A. C., Skog, A., & Lerman, A. E. (2022). Racial equity in eligibility for a clean slate under automatic criminal record relief laws. Law and Society Review, 56 (3). 10.1111/lasr.12625
• Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of Blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America . Harvard University Press.
• Oliver WM, Marion NE. Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2008; 19 :397–413. doi: 10.1177/0887403408318829. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ouss, A., & Stevenson, M. (2022). Does cash bail deter misconduct? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335138
• Packer H. Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 1964; 113 :1–68. doi: 10.2307/3310562. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page J. The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California. Oxford University Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersilia J. Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2016; 664 :8–13. doi: 10.1177/0002716215599932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson RD, Krivo LJ. Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps MS. Possibilities and contestation in twenty-first-century US criminal justice downsizing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2016; 12 :153–170. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett JT. Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019; 2 :405–428. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024826. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett JT, Ivanov S, Wozniak KH. Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: A nationally representative framing experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2022; 18 :387–409. doi: 10.1007/s11292-020-09447-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter, N. (2021). Racial impact statements, sentencing project . Retrieved July 16 2022, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/racial-impact-statements/
• Provine DM, Varsanyi MW, Lewis PG, Decker SH. Policing immigrants: Local law enforcement on the front lines. University of Chicago Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S. The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box. Annual Review of Criminology. 2021; 4 (1):191–207. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S, Stoll MA. Why are so many Americans in prison? Russell Sage Foundation; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rein M, Schön DA. Problem setting in policy research. In: Weiss CH, editor. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington Books; 1977. pp. 235–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiter K, Chesnut K. Correctional autonomy and authority in the rise of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2018; 14 :49–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.
• Rubin AT. Penal change as penal layering: A case study of proto-prison adoption and capital punishment reduction, 1785–1822. Punishment and Society. 2016; 18 :420–441. doi: 10.1177/1462474516641376. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sample LL, Kadleck C. Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2008; 19 :40–62. doi: 10.1177/0887403407308292. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sample LL, Evans MK, Anderson AL. Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2011; 22 :27–49. doi: 10.1177/0887403410373698. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2022 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved August 28 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html
• Schlesinger T. The failure of race neutral policies: How mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements contribute to mass racialized incarceration. Crime & Delinquency. 2011; 57 :56–81. doi: 10.1177/0011128708323629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334–347. 10.2307/2939044
• Schneider A, Sidney M. What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal. 2006; 37 :103–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00298.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seeds C. Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment and Society. 2017; 19 :590–610. doi: 10.1177/1462474516673822. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharkey P. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, K., & Larimer, C. (2017). The public policy theory primer (3rd Edition). Taylor & Francis.
• Spencer KB, Charbonneau AK, Glaser J. Implicit bias and policing. Social and personality. Psychology Compass. 2016; 10 :50–63. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12210. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Subramanian R, Delaney R. Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences. Vera Institute of Justice; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tewksbury R. Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Federal Probation. 2002; 66 :21–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thielo AJ, Cullen FT, Cohen DM, Chouhy C. Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016; 15 :137–170. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12182. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyack DB, Cuban L. Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulloa, J. (2017). California becomes ‘sanctuary state’ in rebuke of Trump immigration policy. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20171005-story.html
• Warren P, Chiricos T, Bales W. The imprisonment penalty for Young Black and Hispanic Males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2012; 49 :56–80. doi: 10.1177/0022427810397945. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widra. E., & Herring, T. (2021). States of incarceration: The global context 2021 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved July 26 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Criminal Justice — Problems and Reforms Needed: How to Improve the Criminal Justice System

Problems and Reforms Needed: How to Improve The Criminal Justice System

• Categories: American Criminal Justice System Criminal Justice

About this sample

Words: 499 |

Published: Mar 19, 2020

Words: 499 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

How to Improve the Criminal Justice System in America?

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 569 words

3 pages / 1725 words

2 pages / 1069 words

6 pages / 3178 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Criminal Justice

Was the Reign of Terror justified or not? It was necessary for the revolution. Even though the Reign of Terror didn’t protect the rights of man like the starters of the French Revolution wanted, it allowed the military to secure [...]

Criminologists try to understand human behavior by examining traits and how this affects a person’s behavior. Many of the theories and concepts held by criminologists are based on researches of the social classes in society and [...]

Adolescents and young adults often experience stress, confusion and depression because of their families, communities and school. Overwhelming feelings causes adolescents and a young adult to act out in varies ways. The study of [...]

United States has many of its citizens increased than any other country in the word. The sentencing laws that have been put in place which focus on extending prison terms as well as ensuring that repeated offenders are locked [...]

For this paper, I intend to focus on Michelle Alexander’s award-winning book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, which centers itself on the object of mass incarceration. Alexander’s stunning [...]

To begin with, I would like to state that every social problem has a deep root and the situation we usually see – is just the tip of an iceberg. Juvenile delinquency could be a prime example of this theory, as the causes [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

• State Profiles
• Advocacy Toolkit
• Fact Sheets

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

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

• June 7, 2024 : Research Director Wendy Sawyer will take part in a panel discussion during the Association of Health Care Journalists conference. The panel, Incarceration as a public health threat , will focus on the ways mass incarceration harms the health of not only incarcerated people but their communities as well. Communication Director Mike Wessler will also be in attendance for journalists who want to connect.

Not near you? Invite us to your city, college or organization.

Visualizing the racial disparities in mass incarceration

Racial inequality is evident in every stage of the criminal justice system - here are the key statistics compiled into a series of charts..

by Wendy Sawyer , July 27, 2020

Recent protests calling for radical changes to American policing have brought much-needed attention to the systemic racism within our criminal justice system. This extends beyond policing, of course: Systemic racism is evident at every stage of the system , from policing to prosecutorial decisions, pretrial release processes, sentencing, correctional discipline, and even reentry. The racism inherent in mass incarceration affects children as well as adults, and is often especially punishing for people of color who are also marginalized along other lines, such as gender and class.

Because racial disparity data is often frustratingly hard to locate, we’ve compiled the key data available into a series of charts, arranged into five slideshows focused on policing , juvenile justice , jails and pretrial detention, prisons and sentencing, and reentry . These charts provide a fuller picture of racial inequality in the criminal justice system, and make clear that a broad transformation will be needed to uproot the racial injustice of mass incarceration.

Following the slideshows, we also address five frequently asked questions about criminal justice race/ethnicity data.

There are racial disparities in policing and arrests:

There are racial disparities in the arrest and confinement of youth:

There are racial disparities in local jails and pretrial detention:

There are racial disparities in prisons, extreme sentences, and solitary confinement:

There are racial disparities in homelessness, unemployment, and poverty after release:

Frequently asked questions about race and ethnicity in criminal justice data

Q: why are terms used inconsistently, such as “hispanic” and “latino/a”.

A: Sharp-eyed readers will notice some inconsistency in the terms used in the charts above, and across the literature more generally. For example, the Census Bureau and most national criminal justice data uses the category “American Indian or Alaska Native” to describe indigenous people in the U.S., but the juvenile justice system data uses the term “American Indian.” Likewise, “Hispanic” is used most frequently in various national data sets to refer to those with Spanish-speaking ancestry, but some sources use Latino/a (or Latinx), which specifically refers to those with Latin American ancestry. In these charts (and in most of our publications), we use the terminology of the original data sources.

Q: Why are some racial/ethnic categories not represented in the data?

A: The question of how accurately race and ethnicity data reflect justice-involved populations goes beyond inconsistent labels. Most obviously, not all racial or ethnic groups are consistently represented in the data; less populous Census-identified groups, such as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Asian, and American Indian or Alaska Native – as well as the sizable but less specific “Two or more races” and “Some other race” – are very often excluded in publications, even when they are collected. Moreover, all of these categories are so broad that they lump together groups with very different experiences with the U.S. justice system. They disregard tribal differences, sweep people of East Asian and South Asian origins into one category, and somehow ignore Arab Americans entirely. As a result, our observations of racial and ethnic discrimination are limited to these broad categories and lack any real nuance.

Q: Where can I find data about racial disparities in my state’s criminal justice system?

A: Unfortunately, the more specific you want to get with race/ethnicity data, the harder it is to find an answer, especially one that’s up-to-date. State-level race and ethnicity data can be hard to find if you are looking to federal government sources like the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). BJS does publish state-level race and ethnicity data in its annual Prisoners series ( Appendix Table 2 in 2018), but only every 6-7 years in its Jail Inmates series (most recently the 2013 Census of Jails report, Table 7 ). The Vera Institute of Justice has attempted to fill this gap with its Incarceration Trends project, by gathering additional data from individual states. Individual state Departments of Correction sometimes collect and/or publish more up-to-date and specific data; it’s worth checking with your own state’s agencies.

Q: Where can I find criminal justice race/ethnicity data disaggregated by sex?

A: Disaggregating racial/ethnic data by sex is unfortunately not the norm in reports produced by the federal government (i.e. BJS). For people able to access and analyze the raw data, such analyses are often possible, but most people rely on the reports published by government agencies like BJS. As you can see in the chart showing prison incarceration rates by sex and race/ethnicity, BJS does sometimes offer this level of detail. But again, the same level of detail is not available for jails, and an analysis of both race/ethnicity and sex by state is all but unheard-of – even though it is precisely this level of detail that is most useful for advocates trying to help specific populations in their state.

Q: How are the data collected, and how accurate are the data?

A: Finally, the validity of any data depends on how the data are collected in the first place. And in the case of criminal justice data, race and ethnicity are not always self-reported (which would be ideal). Police officers may report an individual’s race based on their own perception – or not report it at all – and the surveys that report the number of incarcerated people on a given day rely on administrative data, which may not reflect how individuals identify their own race or ethnicity. This is why surveys of incarcerated people themselves are so important, such as the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails and the Survey of Prison Inmates, but those surveys are conducted much less frequently. In fact, it’s been 18 years since the last Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, which we use to analyze pretrial jail populations, and 16 years since the last published data from the Survey of Inmates were collected.

How to link to specific images

Because some readers might want to link to specific images in this briefing out of the context of these slideshows, we’ve created these special URLs so you can link directly to a specific image:

Wendy Sawyer is the Prison Policy Initiative Research Director. ( Other articles | Full bio | Contact )

Related briefings:

• New report: The Racial Geography of Mass Incarceration  +
• Updated charts provide insights on racial disparities, correctional control, jail suicides, and more  +
• Racial disparities in diversion: A research roundup  +

Recommended Reading:

Why are calls from prisons and jails so expensive?

We look at the progress in the fight for phone justice and what comes next.

Research Library

We curate a searchable database of 4,000+ original research reports, organizing each entry by topic and adding brief summaries.

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie

The U.S. incarcerates over 1.9 million people, more than any other country. Where are they locked up and why? Read our report.

Jails and bail: Our research

One out of three people behind bars is in a local jail. Our research drives jail reform.

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

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

104 Criminal Justice Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Criminal justice is a broad and complex field that encompasses various aspects of law enforcement, corrections, and the judicial system. If you are studying criminal justice or planning to pursue a career in this field, you will likely be required to write essays on various topics related to criminal justice. To help you get started, here are 104 criminal justice essay topic ideas and examples:

• The evolution of criminal justice systems over the years.
• The role of technology in modern law enforcement.
• The impact of media on public perception of criminal justice.
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates.
• The effectiveness of community policing in reducing crime.
• The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence in criminal justice.
• The use of body cameras by police officers and its impact on accountability.
• The role of forensic science in solving crimes.
• The challenges of investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes.
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing on the criminal justice system.
• The causes and consequences of wrongful convictions.
• The role of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior.
• The ethical considerations of capital punishment.
• The impact of racial profiling on minority communities.
• The role of restorative justice in repairing harm caused by crime.
• The challenges of addressing cybercrime in the digital age.
• The impact of the war on drugs on criminal justice policies.
• The role of victim services in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of probation and parole in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between poverty and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
• The impact of the criminal justice system on marginalized communities.
• The role of criminal profiling in solving serial crimes.
• The challenges of addressing domestic violence within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of the "war on terror" on civil liberties.
• The role of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods in reducing court congestion.
• The relationship between drug addiction and criminal behavior.
• The impact of mandatory reporting laws on child abuse cases.
• The role of private prisons in the criminal justice system.
• The challenges of addressing human trafficking within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of social media on criminal investigations.
• The role of forensic psychology in criminal profiling.
• The effectiveness of anti-gang initiatives in reducing gang-related crimes.
• The relationship between gun control laws and crime rates.
• The impact of the "three strikes" law on recidivism rates.
• The role of community-based corrections programs in reducing incarceration rates.
• The challenges of addressing police misconduct within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of DNA evidence on criminal investigations and convictions.
• The relationship between immigration policies and crime rates.
• The effectiveness of sex offender registration laws in protecting communities.
• The role of social programs in preventing juvenile delinquency.
• The challenges of addressing hate crimes within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of surveillance technologies on privacy rights.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing the opioid crisis.
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between mental health treatment and recidivism rates.
• The impact of mandatory sentencing for drug offenses on minority communities.
• The role of community-based organizations in reducing gang violence.
• The challenges of addressing police brutality within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of globalization on transnational crimes.
• The role of forensic anthropology in identifying human remains.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for first-time offenders.
• The relationship between poverty and juvenile delinquency.
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on law enforcement practices.
• The role of victim impact statements in sentencing decisions.
• The challenges of addressing elder abuse within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of technology on the privacy rights of individuals.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing human rights violations.
• The effectiveness of drug education programs in preventing substance abuse.
• The relationship between mental health courts and recidivism rates.
• The impact of the "school-to-prison pipeline" on marginalized communities.
• The role of forensic entomology in estimating time of death.
• The challenges of addressing child exploitation within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients on poverty rates.
• The role of community supervision in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between police presence and crime rates.
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation in addressing the harm caused by crime.
• The impact of the Fifth Amendment on interrogation practices.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing human trafficking.
• The challenges of addressing cyberbullying within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of surveillance cameras on crime prevention.
• The role of forensic linguistics in analyzing written evidence.
• The effectiveness of gun buyback programs in reducing gun violence.
• The relationship between mental health treatment and criminal behavior.
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies on domestic violence cases.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing environmental crimes.
• The challenges of addressing police corruption within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of eyewitness misidentification on wrongful convictions.
• The relationship between substance abuse and child neglect.
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing hate crimes.
• The impact of predictive policing on law enforcement practices.
• The challenges of addressing human rights violations within the criminal justice system.
• The role of forensic odontology in identifying human remains.
• The effectiveness of community-based drug treatment programs.
• The relationship between poverty and gang involvement.
• The impact of the exclusionary rule on the criminal justice system.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing environmental justice.
• The challenges of addressing cyberstalking within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of community surveillance programs on crime prevention.
• The role of forensic accounting in investigating financial crimes.
• The effectiveness of gun control policies in reducing gun-related crimes.
• The relationship between substance abuse treatment and recidivism rates.
• The impact of mandatory reporting laws on elder abuse cases.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing animal cruelty.
• The challenges of addressing corruption within the criminal justice system.
• The impact of false confessions on wrongful convictions.
• The relationship between substance abuse and intimate partner violence.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for mentally ill offenders.
• The role of criminal justice policies in addressing cybercrime.
• The impact of community-based restorative justice programs on crime reduction.
• The challenges of addressing international crimes within the criminal justice system.

These essay topics provide a starting point for your research and analysis in the field of criminal justice. Remember to choose a topic that interests you and aligns with your academic goals and career aspirations. Good luck with your essays!

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Advertisement

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

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

Cite this article

• Charis E. Kubrin 1 &
• Rebecca Tublitz 1  

4733 Accesses

17 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Criminal Justice Reform and the System’s Efficiency

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

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Rationales of Punishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Narratives of Criminal Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Policy Talk: Framing Problems, Shaping Possible Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Equity-Consciousness in Policy Formulation

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

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

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

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

V. Putting It Together: Modeling the Policy Change Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Charis E. Kubrin & Rebecca Tublitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charis E. Kubrin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2022

Accepted : 01 December 2022

Published : 20 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

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.   

Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and how to Fix them

How it works

The criminal justice system has an important role in society to maintain order and to ensure that law is equal and fair; no matter age, ethnicity, race, sex, or social economical status. Unfortunately, this is not true within the current judicial system. Racial discrimination, youth incarceration, and health related infirmities result from incarceration (Simonson, 2017).

• 1 Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How to Fix Them
• 2 References

Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How to Fix Them

There are many problems that plague our current criminal justice system. The problems affect all those incarcerated as well as the guards who are watchmen over the prison walls.

The guards are supposed to maintain order and even with that, many problems remain. I will identify three problems of the criminal justice system and my suggestion on how to fix those three problems. The three problems I recognize are racial discrimination, youth incarceration and poor health conditions of the incarcerated.

Racial discrimination allows the criminal justice system to conduct discriminatory misconduct on defendants by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs view each defendant guilty before he or she is properly convicted in the court of law. Generally, underprivileged population fall victim to unjust legal practices. Continuous accountability does not exist and what justice should be is questionable (Simonson, 2017). Average citizens participate in voting and serving on juries where the underprivileged does not. This causes an unequal distribution of political power that ends with the best interest of the poor population being overlooked. People of color end up becoming part of the criminal justice system due to wrongful accusations (Simonson, 2017). A workable solution for racial discrimination would be for people of color to become more self-aware and involved with the current social injustice within their communities. They must take a stand for their rights and be an advocate for equality. Equality may not be divided evenly, but the penalty for each crime should be just and equal for each offender no matter – age, race or social economical status. People of color must be persistent, remain vigilant and never falter or waver from their rights of equality.

Youth incarceration is the result of an individual being incarcerated no less than 12 years of age and no older than 17 years of age. There is an increase of incidences of youth incarceration when a student is expelled from school with little or no adult supervision to guide them back on the right path. Without proper supervision, they start participating in criminal activity. According to (McCarter, 2016), more than three million U.S. public school students were suspended at least once during the 2011-2012 school year. Due to being suspended from school just once increases the student’s likelihood of repeating a grade, dropping out, and encountering the juvenile justice system. Juvenile crime peaked in the United States in the 1990s. The violence included school violence and shootings. Youth incarceration will never completely be non-existent. To eliminate the high incidence of youth incarceration activities and programs must be increased and reestablished. This will decrease the amount of idle time available for mischief. The activities and programs must promote a positive message to keep the youth active and involved.

Health related infirmities resulting from incarceration is present in all facilities of confinement in the criminal justice system. According to (Cloud, Parsons, Delany-Brumsey, 2014), people in correctional facilities are among the unhealthiest and most medically underserved in society. Health care within correctional facilities is mandated, but the care is subminimal in comparison to individuals outside the correctional facilities (Cloud et al., 2014). Correctional facilities are unhealthy where those incarcerated are exposed to conditions that is detrimental to their physical and mental health. These conditions include overcrowding, violence, poor nutrition, and unsanitary conditions. To fix poor conditions, lobbyists must gain the attention people in authority positions and demand them to fix living conditions for the people who are incarcerated. Cease without expectancy until conditions are improved and hold authority personnel accountable. Constantly checking on the correctional facilities by forming focus groups to ensure that the demands of healthier condition are met should be also used to ensure accountability as well.

Problems within the criminal justice system will always exist. It will take committed, dedicated people to make a difference to decrease the problems. People must have a heart of compassion and truly care to make a difference. The problems may never completed go away, but with individuals who care, can take a stand, and have a voice for the voiceless. Taking a stand for the incarcerated will result in better conditions for those affected within the criminal justice system.

Cloud, D. H., Parsons, J., & Delany-Brumsey, A. (2014). Addressing Mass Incarceration: A Clarion Call for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 389-391. doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301741

McCarter, S. (2016). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Primer for Social Workers. Social Work, 62(1), 53-61. doi:10.1093/sw/sww078

Simonson, J. (2017). Democratizing Criminal Justice Through Contestation and Resistance. 111(6). Retrieved from Northwestern University Law Review.

Cite this page

Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them. (2020, Mar 05). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/

"Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them." PapersOwl.com , 5 Mar 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/ [Accessed: 26 May. 2024]

"Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them." PapersOwl.com, Mar 05, 2020. Accessed May 26, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/

"Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them," PapersOwl.com , 05-Mar-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/. [Accessed: 26-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Three Problems of the Criminal Justice System and How To Fix Them . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/three-problems-of-the-criminal-justice-system-and-how-to-fix-them/ [Accessed: 26-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

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

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

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

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System Essay

In the recent past, the number of mentally ill people taking part in the criminal justice system has been increasing. People with mental illness are convoluted in the criminal justice system for several reasons since they cannot control their situations. Providing services to this community enhance fairness and equity in society.

Most of the providers have been serving the affected individuals for quite some time and have gained immense experience in the field. Consequently, many people with criminal records enter mental health services system through referral ways such as crisis services, social services departments, human services agencies, educational programs, families, and individual-referrals (Cole & Smith, 2010).

Majority of mentally ill persons referred from courts, probation departments, and jails are not necessarily dangerous or violent. This implies that their participation in the criminal justice system may signal a higher serious illness or immediate attention for comprehensives services.

Also, such individuals have similar needs as other individuals with mental illness on the current case records (Sales, 2007). For this reason, providing services to this group does not interfere with serving other criminals, and may curb future arrest or incarceration.

The integration of mental health service providers in the criminal justice system addresses the needs of people with mental illness. Such a relationship of the groups enhances communication and coordination of the issues affecting the mentally ill individuals.

Furthermore, providers need clarifications towards the types of information that can or should be made available within the criminal justice system. At the same time, the manner of conquering the challenges and obstacles interwoven in mental health and criminal justice services are addressed.

Criminal justice system involvement in the issue is attributed to the stigma of mental illness and the degree of transparency in service delivery systems. For instance, the chances of arresting mentally ill persons are higher due to their deeds and conditions.

On the other hand, many individuals with mental illness have no sources of funds, which may make them be detained because they cannot afford even minimal bails (Sales, 2007). Additionally, such people are not allowed to be released on personal recognizance.

Repeatedly, individuals with mental illness are usually charged with more serious crimes than their counterparts convicted with similar behavior. Moreover, people with mental illness are charged, convicted and sentenced severely in comparison to other individuals accused of the same crimes. Apart from that issue, persons with mental illness spend two to five times longer periods in jail than people implicated with no mental disorder (Cole & Smith, 2010).

At the time, innovative approaches have been constructed aimed at disrupting the cycle of arrest and re-arrest of persons with mental illness popularly referred to as criminalization of persons with mental illness. Police officers have been receiving training in the applicable treatment of persons with mental illness.

For instance, correctional services have developed programs for improved identifications, treatment and freeing of persons with mental illness. The courts have incorporated programs to channel persons with mental illness from the criminal justice systems into treatments. As such, community rehabilitation programs have been working with mental health providers to address the needs of people with mental disorders.

Despite the initiatives adopted, challenges have emanated in court-ordered treatment for persons with mental disability since they may have an opportunity to change incarceration through programs such as diversions and probations. When an individual is implicated with a criminal offense, the individual becomes a subject to the authority of the criminal justice system.

Measures such as probation and diversion are likely to be included as some form of treatment mandated or ordered, by a criminal court at various point in a criminal proceeding. Often, treatments mandated are usually diverse to factor in many options available. Therefore, the considerations made by a court will depend on the circumstances surrounding the individual.

Effective programs have also been designed to work actively in touching the treatment plans developed by health providers. The programs involve means of offering a treatment plan and designing a written crisis plan to the affected individuals. On the other hand, the plans of health care directives should reflect the individual treatment choice (Cole & Smith, 2010).

Victims’ rights movement has been formed for the legal protection of complainants and defendants in courts. Currently, almost every state has either passed laws or adopted constitutional amendments to assist victims in a criminal hearing. Initially, Wisconsin established a bill of rights for victims and provided funding for victim assistance programs.

This was followed by California, which borrowed the concepts developed in Wisconsin. Crime victims and victims’ rights organizations pushed for all states to work on protecting victims’ rights. Their main concern was that several victims were disregarded and to some extent mistreated by criminal justice systems since they only focused on the protection of the legal rights of defendants (Sales, 2007).

While it is true that victims’ bill of right differs from one state to the other, they all require that victims be treated with respect and fairness by police officers, prosecutors, and other officials. Also, the police officers should notify victims about the progress of their cases from the investigation stages to the time when the criminal will be released from prison. This will ensure that mentally ill individuals are treated fairly and reasonably.

Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2010). The American system of criminal justice (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Sales, B. D. (2007). The Criminal justice system . New York: Plenum Press.

• Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination
• What is Juvenile Probation?
• Healthy People Program: Smoking Issue in Wisconsin
• The Problem of Child Molestation
• Patterns at Crime Scenes
• Transnational Organized Crime
• Self Defence Issues and Implication in Cyberspace
• Criminal Law: Human Trafficking
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 12). Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mental-health-issues-in-the-criminal-justice-system/

"Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System." IvyPanda , 12 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/mental-health-issues-in-the-criminal-justice-system/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System'. 12 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System." March 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mental-health-issues-in-the-criminal-justice-system/.

1. IvyPanda . "Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System." March 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mental-health-issues-in-the-criminal-justice-system/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System." March 12, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mental-health-issues-in-the-criminal-justice-system/.