Suchergebnisse

We've entered a new age of reform—criminal justice reform, that is. In late April 2015 Hillary Clinton, in one of the first formal addresses of her presidential campaign, declared, "It's time to end the era of mass incarceration." This policy speech on criminal justice reform signaled a personal transformation. In 1994 Clinton applauded as her husband Bill Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a critical episode in the expansion of the prison system. Clinton's conversion is not unique; she is one of many.

In 1993, criminal justice reformers believed that the two-decade trend toward greater imprisonment had finally reached its peak. As Attorney General Janet Reno preached the message that "prenatal care is more important than prisons" in controlling crime, criminal justice professionals challenged the wisdom of building more prisons, policy analysts questioned the merit of mandatory sentencing guidelines, & attention was directed toward the dramatic racial disparities within the criminal justice system. By early 1994, however, the prospects for reform had been dealt a serious blow by the frenzied political climate on crime & by newly enacted legislative changes. The most important aspects of the new "law & order" climate are outlined. An alternative vision for the future is also presented. 14 References. M. Maguire

In this paper, I propose a framework for the future direction of criminal justice reform. The punishing effects of American criminal justice have become pervasive in communities challenged by racial inequality, poverty, and violence. Responding to violence in contexts of racial inequality and poverty is the fundamental challenge for reform. To meet this challenge, we must develop socially-integrative responses to violence that draw victims and offenders back into the social compact. Such responses will help restore social bonds and build pathways of opportunity for communities contending with poverty and racial exclusion.

Suggests that reformers in 1993 were of a belief that the 2-decade-long trend toward greater imprisonment might have reached its peak. Less than a year later, that optimistic scenario had been transformed; asks how the political landscape changed so rapidly.

From the perspective of a former US Attorney General, it is contended that the treatment of crime victims in the US by the criminal justice system has been a national disgrace. In recent years, progress has been made to reverse this abuse, as reflected by tremendous growth in the number of state laws & programs designed to assist victims. At home, in school, in religious institutions, & in the community, values must be affirmed that best prevent crime. It must be remembered that law & its enforcement play a vital role in the inculcation of respect for human life & dignity. HA

American criminal justice systems blend elected or politically appointed leaders with career civil servants. This organizational hybrid creates challenges at the intersection of democratic accountability and enforcement discretion. In moments of stasis in the politics of criminal justice, those challenges are largely invisible: the public, elected officials, and civil servants generally share a unity of interest, borne of like-minded policy commitments that have developed over time. But in moments of political transition—that is, when public preferences on criminal justice policy are in flux—the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy can be fraught. Public demand for change may or may not accord with the commitments, ideals, and culture of the bureaucracy's front-line actors. Elected leaders are voted in with high expectations for transformative change, but may be stymied by institutional resistance to it. The bureaucracy, in turn, may seek to alter the political narrative that is fueling the political transition, further complicating the democratic process. And in a system in which criminal lawmaking and enforcement power is spread across three different levels of government—local, state, and federal—with overlapping authority yet different constituencies, the complexity of interplay between "public" and bureaucracy deepens. Across America, a growing number of jurisdictions are entering moments of political transition in criminal justice. This Article explores the political and institutional arrangements that alternatively impede, permit, or even accelerate a resulting change in criminal enforcement on the ground. Drawing on the democracy/bureaucracy framework developed in the fields of political theory and public administration, the Article considers how these fields and others can enrich our understanding of current political and institutional dynamics in American criminal justice. The Article then reflects on these dynamics' implications for democratic responsiveness and systemic legitimacy, arguing, counterintuitively, that the very features of the democracy/bureaucracy relationship capable of slowing democratically sanctioned change in criminal enforcement can also end up hastening political shifts; and that, properly leveraged, the criminal enforcement bureaucracy can help realize deliberative and participatory democratic ideals.