how to improve the criminal justice system essay

How can we improve the criminal justice system?

If future scholars of American history remember 2015 for one defining issue, it may well be the rising public uproar over ugly and often fatal encounters between police and black citizens.

The police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., along with videos of police killings in New York City, Cleveland and Chicago, ignited the Black Lives Matter movement. Equally graphic videos from Texas – of a police officer roughing up teenage girls at a pool party or of the officer who threatened to use a Taser on Sandra Bland after pulling her over for failing to signal a lane change – intensified charges that police unfairly target African Americans and other minorities.

As gripping as such incidents are, they still amount to individual anecdotes that can steer a narrative. To provide an unbiased, data-driven analysis of such issues, researchers at Stanford University's School of Engineering have launched what they call the Project on Law, Order & Algorithms .

The project is led by computational social scientist Sharad Goel , an assistant professor of management science and engineering. He also teaches a course at Stanford Engineering that explores the intersection of data science and public policy issues revolving around policing.

Among other activities, Goel's team is building a vast open database of 100 million traffic stops from cities and towns around the nation. The researchers have already gathered data on about 50 million stops from 11 states, recording basic facts about the stop – time, date and location – plus any available demographic data that do not reveal an individual's identity. These demographics might include race, sex and age of the person.

Based on its work thus far, the Knight Foundation recently awarded the team a $310,000 grant to at least double the size of the database, compiling data from as many as 40 states, going back five to 10 years.

The ongoing project has several purposes. The first and most topical goal is to produce a statistical method to assess whether police discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, age or gender, and, if so, how frequently and under what circumstances. A second but equally important purpose is to help law enforcement agencies design practices that are more equitable and effective at reducing crime.

Ultimately, Goel and his colleagues plan to take the know-how that they will have gained through their analysis of traffic stops and create a software toolkit that others could use to acquire data from municipal or county governments and perform similar analyses. Their idea is to enable other academic researchers, journalists, community groups and police departments to do the same sort of data mining that today requires the expertise of experienced researchers like the members of Goel's team.

Precinct or prejudice?

The public appetite for accurate and comprehensive data has increased sharply. In the aftermath of Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, the U.S. Justice Department concluded that Ferguson's police had routinely targeted black residents and frequently violated their civil rights. African Americans accounted for two-thirds of Ferguson's population, but 85 percent of all traffic stops, 90 percent of all tickets and 93 percent of all arrests. Statewide, a separate report by Missouri's attorney general, as described in the New York Times, found that police were 75 percent more likely to stop black drivers than white ones.

"Technically, much of this is already public data, but it's often not easily accessible, and even when the data are available, there hasn't been much analysis," Goel said.

When researchers do take a deep dive into the data, the results can be as eye-opening for police departments as they are for community groups.

In "Precinct or Prejudice," a new study of New York City's stop-and-frisk policies, Goel and two colleagues found that police were indeed stopping and searching blacks and Hispanics at disproportionate rates. Focusing on about 760,000 stops in which police officers stopped and frisked people on the suspicion of holding an illegal weapon, the researchers found that African Americans who had been stopped were significantly less likely to have a weapon than whites who had been stopped.

When the researchers analyzed the data to discover why, they found that the biggest reason for the racial disparity was the fact that police focused their stop-and-frisk efforts in high-crime precincts heavily populated by minorities. Yet even after adjusting for the effects of location, they found that blacks and Hispanics were stopped a disproportionate amount of the time.

Perhaps the most important finding in "Precinct or Prejudice," however, was that New York City police could have recovered the majority of the weapons by carrying out only a tiny fraction of stop-and-frisk operations. Analyzing a very long list of factors that police officers cited as reasons for stopping and frisking people, the researchers found that only a handful had any predictive value. Seizing on hints of "furtive movement," for example, was almost useless.

In fact, the researchers concluded, if the police had conducted stop-and-frisk operations based on just three factors – a suspicious bulge, a suspicious object, and the sight or sound of criminal activity – they could have found more than half of all the weapons they did find with only 6 percent as many stops.

Predicting crime

Goel is keenly aware that technologies for "predictive modeling," such as using data to predict whether a person is likely to re-commit a violent crime, can have a chilling side. But he notes that a rigorous randomized control trial of a predictive tool used by Philadelphia parole authorities appeared to make life easier for parolees without increasing their risk of re-violation.

"There are all kinds of ways this can go wrong," Goel cautioned. "On the other hand, this can be a win-win situation. Everybody wants to reduce crime in a way that is supportive of the community. We'd like to help law enforcement agencies make better decisions – decisions that are more equitable, efficient and transparent."

Beyond building the database of traffic stops, Goel and his colleagues are using statistical tools to improve other aspects of the judicial system. In one effort, the researchers are working with the district attorney of a large city to improve pre-trial detention practices. In many cases, people arrested on minor crimes cannot afford to make bail and remain stuck in jail for weeks while they await trial.

"I've been amazed by all the interest on campus in this computational approach to criminal justice," Goel said. "In my Law, Order & Algorithms class, students from departments across the university are working together on projects that address some of the most pressing issues in the criminal justice system, from detecting discrimination to improving judicial decisions."

Related | Sharad Goel , assistant professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University

Related Departments

A person with headphones using a digital audio workstation on a computer while holding a guitar.

The future of computer music

Artificial Intelligence
Technology & Society

Microscopic images of colored, oriented hexagonal grains.

Elusive 3D printed nanoparticles could lead to new shapeshifting materials

Child patient's hand held by an adult in hospital.

The future of pediatric pain

Social Policy

How can we improve our criminal justice system?

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

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

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

Moving restorative justice into the mainstream

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republish this article

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

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

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

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

Policing women’s sexuality in the name of protection

Why do young offenders return to prison?

GetGoodEssay

how to improve the criminal justice system essay

The criminal justice system is a complex network of laws, institutions, and individuals responsible for ensuring that justice is served in society. However, despite the best efforts of many dedicated professionals, the criminal justice system is not without its flaws, and there is ample room for improvement. This essay will explore some of the most pressing issues facing the criminal justice system today, and suggest strategies for improvement.

Discrimination and Bias

One of the most persistent problems facing the criminal justice system is discrimination and bias. Research has shown that individuals from minority communities, such as African Americans and Latinos, are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to longer terms than their white counterparts, even when the circumstances of their crimes are similar. This bias is often rooted in systemic issues such as racial profiling, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal representation in the criminal justice system.

Addressing Discrimination and Bias

To address discrimination and bias in the criminal justice system, it is important to take a multi-faceted approach that includes changes at the legislative, institutional, and individual levels.

Legislative Changes: The first step in addressing discrimination and bias in the criminal justice system is to pass laws that explicitly prohibit racial profiling and other forms of discrimination. In addition, legislation can be passed to promote diversity and equality in hiring and training within criminal justice organizations.

Institutional Changes: Institutions can work to address discrimination and bias through policies and procedures that promote fairness and impartiality in the criminal justice system. This can include providing diversity and sensitivity training for employees, conducting regular reviews of case outcomes to identify and address any patterns of discrimination, and implementing strategies to increase diversity in leadership and decision-making positions.

Individual Changes: Individuals within the criminal justice system can play a key role in promoting fairness and impartiality. This can include embracing a growth mindset, being aware of personal biases and taking steps to mitigate them, and advocating for changes within the system that promote equality and fairness.

Alternative Approaches to Punishment

Another issue facing the criminal justice system is the reliance on punishment as the primary response to crime . While punishment may be necessary in some cases, research has shown that alternative approaches, such as rehabilitation and restorative justice, can be more effective in reducing recidivism and promoting public safety.

Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation programs aim to help individuals who have committed crimes to understand the root causes of their behavior and develop the skills and support they need to turn their lives around. These programs can include therapy, job training, and education, and can be particularly effective for individuals who have committed non-violent crimes.

Restorative Justice: Restorative justice approaches aim to repair the harm caused by criminal behavior, and to restore relationships between individuals and communities. This can include programs such as mediation, community service, and victim-offender reconciliation, and can be an effective alternative to traditional punishment for many individuals who have committed crimes.

Improving Access to Justice

Another challenge facing the criminal justice system is ensuring that all individuals have access to justice, regardless of their financial means. This can be particularly difficult for individuals who cannot afford to pay for legal representation, and who may be forced to navigate the criminal justice system on their own.

Improving Access to Legal Representation: One of the most effective ways to improve access to justice is to provide individuals with access to quality legal representation. This can include programs that provide free or low-cost legal services, as well as initiatives that work to increase the number of public defenders available to represent individuals in court.

Expanding Access to Alternative Dispute Resolution: Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, such as mediation and arbitration, can provide individuals with an alternative to the traditional court system, and can be less costly and time-consuming than going to court. Expanding access to ADR can also help to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, allowing it to focus its resources on the most serious cases.

Improving Police-Community Relations

Another important issue facing the criminal justice system is improving police-community relations. This includes building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and addressing issues of excessive use of force and discrimination by police officers.

Community Policing: Community policing is a strategy that emphasizes partnerships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. By working together, police and community members can identify and address the underlying issues that contribute to crime, and develop effective solutions to these problems.

Training and Professional Development: Providing law enforcement officers with ongoing training and professional development can help to address issues of excessive use of force and discrimination. This can include training on de-escalation techniques, cultural competency, and crisis management.

The criminal justice system is facing a number of challenges, including discrimination and bias, a reliance on punishment as the primary response to crime, limited access to justice, and strained police-community relations. However, by taking a multi-faceted approach and implementing evidence-based solutions, it is possible to make meaningful improvements to the criminal justice system, and to ensure that justice is served in society.

Recent Posts

Essay on Criminological Theories in ‘8 Mile’ - September 21, 2023
Essay on Employment Practices in South Africa: Sham Hiring for Compliance - September 21, 2023
Essay on The Outsiders: Analysis of Three Deaths and Their Impact - September 21, 2023

Listen Live

Here and Now

Here! Now! In the moment! Paddling in the middle of a fast moving stream of news and information. Here & Now is a daily news magazine, bringing you the news that breaks after "Morning Edition" and before "All Things Considered."

Courts & Law
Criminal Justice

If more people attended criminal court, we could advance criminal justice. Here’s how

Court-watching makes our justice system fairer and builds an educated public, writes jeremy isard..

Jeremy Isard

Court gavel, brown wood against a dark background

(JanPietruszka/Bigstock)

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Pamela k. lattimore.

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

Associated Data

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

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

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

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

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

Part I: Waging “War”

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

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

Crime and Correctional Population Trends

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

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

US Violent Crime Rate, 1960–1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

State and Federal Prisoners in the US, 1960–1994

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

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

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

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

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

United States Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–2020

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

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

United States Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 1980–2020

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

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

Responding with Toughness (and Dollars)

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

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

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

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

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

United States Justice Expenditures, 1997–2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Recapitulation

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

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

Part II: Finding “What Works”

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

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

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

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

Challenges: Why Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform So Difficult?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Lattimore & Visher (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Estimates from Wanner ( 2018 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Availability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 Safety and Justice Challenge.

14 https://www.arnoldventures.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publisher's Note

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

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

Essay on Criminal Justice System

Students are often asked to write an essay on Criminal Justice System in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

Introduction to criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law. It has three main parts: the police, courts, and corrections. These parts work together to prevent and punish criminal activities.

The Role of Police

The police are the first step in the criminal justice system. They keep us safe by preventing crime and catching people who break the law. When they find evidence, they give it to the courts.

The Court System

The courts are where judges decide if someone broke the law. They look at the evidence given by the police. If they find the person guilty, they decide the punishment.

Corrections and Punishment

The last part is corrections. This includes prisons, probation, and parole. Prisons are where people go if they’re found guilty. Probation and parole are ways for people to serve their punishment outside of prison.

Importance of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is important because it helps keep order in society. It makes sure that people who break the law are punished, which helps prevent more crime.

250 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

What is the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law. These institutions include the police, the courts, and the correctional facilities. They work together to maintain social control, deter and control crime, and sanction those who violate laws.

The Role of the Police

The police are the first point of contact in the criminal justice system. Their job is to enforce laws, maintain peace, and protect the community. When a crime happens, the police investigate, gather evidence, and arrest the suspect.

The Courts and Their Function

After the police make an arrest, the case moves to the court. The court’s role is to judge if the person is guilty or not. This is done through a trial where both sides present their arguments. If the person is found guilty, the court decides the punishment.

Correctional Facilities

The last part of the criminal justice system is the correctional facilities. These are places like jails and prisons. If a person is found guilty, they might be sent here. The goal is to punish them but also to help them become better citizens.

The Importance of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is very important. It helps keep our society safe and orderly. It makes sure that people who break the law are punished. But it also tries to help these people change their ways so they can live better lives.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system plays a key role in maintaining law and order in society. It ensures that justice is served for both the victims and the offenders. It’s a system that is designed to protect the rights of everyone involved.

500 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is a set of legal and social institutions for enforcing the criminal law in line with a defined set of procedural rules and limitations. In simple words, it’s a system that makes sure people follow the law. If someone breaks the law, this system steps in.

Parts of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is made up of three main parts. These are the police, the courts, and corrections.

The police are responsible for enforcing the law. They are the ones who catch people who break the law. After catching these people, the police hand them over to the courts.

The courts then decide if the person is guilty or not. They do this by listening to both sides of the story. If the person is found guilty, the court gives a punishment. This punishment is meant to make the person understand that breaking the law is wrong.

The corrections part of the system is where the punishment happens. This could be in a jail or prison, or the person might be allowed to stay in their own home but with some rules they must follow.

Why is the Criminal Justice System Important?

The criminal justice system plays a big role in keeping our society safe. It makes sure that everyone follows the law. If there were no system to punish people who break the law, then more people might decide to do bad things.

The system also tries to help people who have broken the law to change their ways. This is done through programs that teach them new skills or help them to understand why what they did was wrong.

Challenges in the Criminal Justice System

Even though the criminal justice system is very important, it also has some problems. Sometimes, people are treated unfairly because of their race or how much money they have. Some people might get a harsher punishment than others for the same crime. This is not fair, and many people are working to make the system better.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system is a key part of our society. It helps to make sure that people follow the law and punishes those who don’t. It also tries to help people change their ways so they don’t break the law again. But, like any system, it has problems that need to be fixed. By understanding how it works, we can all help to make it better.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Crime Prevention
Essay on Crime On Society
Essay on College Diversity

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Essay

Are you looking for a “How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Essay” then you have come across at right place.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The criminal justice system is an integral part of society. It is responsible for maintaining law and order and ensuring justice. However, in recent years, there has been a growing concern about the criminal justice system’s effectiveness. Many people believe that the system is flawed and needs to be reformed. This essay will discuss how the criminal justice system can be improved.

The Problems with the Current Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system in the United States is plagued with several problems. One of the biggest problems is that it is often biased against certain groups of people. For example, studies have shown that people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to longer prison terms than their white counterparts, even when controlling for factors such as the severity of the crime and prior criminal history.

Another problem with the current criminal justice system is that it is often slow and inefficient. It can take years for a case to go through the court system, and many defendants spend a significant amount of time in jail or prison before their trial even begins.

Criminal Justice System Essay

Improving the Criminal Justice System

There are several ways in which the criminal justice system can be improved to make it more effective and fair.

Eliminating Bias

One of the most important steps that can be taken to improve the criminal justice system is to eliminate bias. This can be done by implementing policies ensuring that people are treated fairly regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. For example, some jurisdictions have implemented policies that require police officers to undergo implicit bias training to help them recognize and address their biases.

Another way to eliminate bias is to ensure more diversity among judges, prosecutors, and other criminal justice professionals. When the criminal justice system is more representative of the community it serves, it is more likely to be fair and impartial.

Reforming Sentencing Laws

Another way to improve the criminal justice system is to reform sentencing laws. Many crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences that can be disproportionately harsh, particularly for non-violent offenses. This has led to an over-reliance on imprisonment as a punishment, contributing to the mass imprisonment crisis in the United States.

Reforming sentencing laws to give judges more discretion would be a step in the right direction. It would allow judges to consider factors such as the defendant’s background, the severity of the crime, and the likelihood of recidivism when determining an appropriate sentence.

Investing in Rehabilitation Programs

Investing in rehabilitation programs is another way to improve the criminal justice system. Currently, many people who are released from prison have few opportunities for employment or education, which can lead to a cycle of recidivism.

By investing in programs that help people acquire the skills they need to find meaningful employment, such as vocational training and education programs, we can reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

Improving Police Training

Another important step that can be taken to improve the criminal justice system is to improve police training. Police officers should be trained to de-escalate situations rather than resort to force whenever a conflict occurs.

Additionally, police officers should be trained to recognize and address their biases and build trust with their communities. When police officers are seen as partners in the community rather than adversaries, it can lead to better outcomes for everyone involved.

This How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Essay concludes that there is no doubt that the criminal justice system in the United States needs reform. By eliminating bias, reforming sentencing laws, investing in rehabilitation programs, and improving police training, we can create a more effective and fair system. We must work together to make these changes so that we can create a criminal justice system that is just and equitable for all members of society. We must remember that the criminal justice system affects not only those who come into contact with it but also the wider community. Our collective responsibility is to work towards a system that reflects our values of fairness, equality, and justice.

It is also important to recognize that improving the criminal justice system is not a one-time fix. It will require ongoing efforts and a commitment to continuous improvement. We must be willing to listen to feedback and make changes as needed to ensure that the criminal justice system is always evolving to meet the needs of our society.

Checkout Other Posts:

Why life insurance is important Essay
Service to man is service to God
Learning and growing together Essay

Ways To Improve Our Criminal Justice System

Category Criminology
Subcategory Crime Prevention
Topic Criminal Justice

¨We can no longer accept the things we cannot change, we must change the things we cannot accept¨ -Angela Davis. The American criminal justice system is failing morally, ethically, and socially. This is not a political issue, this is a moral issue. When we look at the surface of the criminal justice structure we think it pursues fairness. By definition, justice means the maintenance or administration of what is just ,especially by the impartial adjustments of claims. Our system needs to be recreated .So many factors play a role in our ineffective justice system. We must do everything we can to save America´s dignity. A few ways we can recreate our justice system is by making sure judges are being fair to the defendants during court cases,and by reconstructing our communities,

The United States criminal justice has been shown to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Statistics show that our criminal justice system is not being very effective in working to create more public safety. We need revolutionary courage to change the face of America’s prison systems. We must be a daring enough society who has the ability to call out its nation´s wrongdoings. We must redefine what justice means and what it represents. Our way forward as a nation is clear.

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

The first and most necessary step in recreating our broken justice system is that we must rebuild inner-city communities all over the US.So many young people´s lives are being turned in the wrong direction because of their social environment. Our governments need to give these communities more resources so that they can redefine themselves. Investing in lower-income communities is a huge benefit to our public society because it shows to the public that we are truly a government that is invested in what is best for its constituents. Making sure that inner-city communities have equal resources just like affluent communities gives the young people in those places the ability to create a better life for themselves. When those people are given a good public, affordable health care facilities, and good job opportunities that allow their communities to receive economic prosperity studies show a decrease in criminal activities. The young people in America are an incredible investment, they will forever revolutionize the course of our nation. We owe it to them to make sure that all of them can receive a fair chance at succeeding in life.

The next step in fixing our justice organization is that we must publicly address and inspect laws and policies that thrive on racial inequality at every level of our justice system. Our system is racially biased because at every level of government racism plays a key role in who gets jailed. People of color make up thirty-seven percent of the US population but they make up sixty-seven percent of the prison population. African Americans are more likely to receive longer jail sentences than their white counterparts. They are more likely to be convicted than any other race. Lastly but most importantly, African Americans are more likely to be arrested than any other race. One in three black men are more likely to serve life imprisonment. It is widely known that lengthy prison sentences, tactical laws, and socioeconomic unfairness trap so many people of color in our prisons.

The third step in recreating our justice system is to give individuals who struggle with drug addictions treatments for their substance abuses. A goal in the criminal justice system should be to rehabilitate criminals if possible. High jailing rates in drug crimes are not effective at all because there will be other individuals who will replace this criminal. Of the 2.3 million individuals incarcerated one-fourth of them are drug sellers/users. The US jail and prison system jail more people for drug crimes than any other country in the world. Studies show that for every dollar spent on drug treatment facilities more than eighteen dollars are saved in our crime system.US prisons and jails only give thirty-seven cents to public safety for every dollar given to them. If forty percent of drug offender went to treatment centers in their communities, the criminal justice system would save almost thirteen billion dollars. Sending people to drug treatment centers lowers drug use, drug use crimes, and overpopulation in prisons and jails. ¨You do not get over addiction by stopping using. You recover by creating a new life where it is easier to not use. If you do not create a new life, then all the factors that brought you to your addiction will catch you again¨.

The fourth step to rebuilding our criminal justice system is to lower our excessive use of extremely long prison sentences. The highest crime peak is in teenagers. Once these troubled teenagers mature, most of them stop crimes. These long prison sentences do not allow these individuals a chance to turn their lives over. Statistics show us high incarceration rates to individuals who have already done their time does not enhance public safety. So long imprisonment sentences are merely ineffective because not only is the crime rate slowing down as these people get older but the price for incarceration facilities keeps rising, so no one is benefiting from this kind of justice system.

The final step in remolding our criminal justice system is the importance of criminal justice reform advocacy. We must continuously convince our state and federal governments to make and sign effective criminal justice reform laws. Advocacy for issues is one of the best tools we as people have to make a change. The more people willing to support these movements advocated for real justice the closer we are to living in a more just world. Activism is the way we reach morally right laws. Our nation needs to fix these issues in our system before things get bad. The right legislation can call out and punish the specific organizations that thrive at the hands of injustice. Legislation can give these individuals a second chance at living a better life.

In any society, it is crucial to have some sort of punishment facility for individuals who do wrong. Believing in criminal justice reform does not mean you are against prisons and jails.It means you are for just punishment when necessary. There are so many factors that can be taken to recreate our criminal justice system. Everyone would benefit from a better justice system. The people who are wrongly jailed would benefit, public safety would benefit and the criminal justice system who benefit. The way we approach our criminal justice system is by wisely using our resources, ending racism and economic inequity in our system and helping to decrease the number of people in our prisons by aiding those people with treatment facilities.

We have 98 writers available online to start working on your essay just NOW!

Transforming the System

Our criminal justice system must keep all communities safe, foster prevention and rehabilitation, and ensure fair and equal justice. But in too many places, and in too many ways, our system is falling short of that mandate and with devastating consequences. The United States is saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources and disrupts communities.

People of color, particularly Native American, black, and Latino people, have felt the impact of discrimination within the criminal justice system. Many immigrants experience mandatory detention, racial profiling, and due process violations because of laws and policies that violate their human rights—and the principles of equal justice, fair treatment, and proportionality under our criminal justice system. The good news is that we as a nation are at a unique moment in which there is strong public, bipartisan support for criminal justice reform; we see positive policy developments in many parts of the country; and mass action and social movements for change are growing, including the Movement for Black Lives. More is needed, however, to move from positive trends to transformative, lasting change. This website provides practical policy solutions and communication tools for building a shared narrative around criminal justice reform.

“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Criminal Justice Policy Solutions

Submit your ideas.

We invite readers to submit feedback and ideas about this report to the Transforming the System feedback form . This information will guide our efforts to improve the communications of criminal justice reforms and advance a shared narrative around transforming the criminal justice system

The Artist Statement - Alixa Garcia

"As we stand on the crest of history, we look back to see that this wave of oppression has long been rising with the tumultuous spirit of those who drowned in the Atlantic ..."

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

Essays on Criminal Justice

Criminal justice essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: reforming the criminal justice system: challenges, progress, and the road ahead.

Thesis Statement: This essay examines the challenges within the criminal justice system, the progress made in recent years, and the ongoing efforts required to reform and ensure a fair and equitable system for all.

Introduction
The Criminal Justice System: Structure and Key Components
Challenges and Injustices: Racial Disparities, Mass Incarceration, and Sentencing
Reform Movements: Criminal Justice Reform Advocacy and Legislation
Alternatives to Incarceration: Restorative Justice and Rehabilitation
Police Reform: Building Trust and Accountability in Law Enforcement
The Role of Technology: Advancements in Criminal Justice Practices
Conclusion: Towards a More Just and Equitable Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 2: Criminal Justice and Civil Rights: Analyzing the Intersection, Historical Struggles, and Contemporary Debates

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the intersection of criminal justice and civil rights, tracing historical struggles for equality, and examining contemporary debates regarding policing, incarceration, and civil liberties.

Civil Rights Movements: Historical Context and Achievements
Law Enforcement and Civil Rights: Cases of Police Brutality and Protests
Mass Incarceration: Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color
Criminal Justice Reforms: The Role of Advocacy and Grassroots Movements
The Fourth Amendment: Searches, Seizures, and Privacy Rights
Contemporary Debates: Balancing Security and Civil Liberties
Conclusion: Upholding Civil Rights within the Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 3: International Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Comparative Analysis of Legal Systems and Global Challenges

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comparative analysis of criminal justice systems worldwide, highlighting variations in legal approaches, international cooperation, and shared challenges in addressing transnational crime.

Legal Systems: Common Law, Civil Law, and Hybrid Systems
International Law Enforcement: Interpol, UNODC, and Global Cooperation
Transnational Crime: Cybercrime, Human Trafficking, and Drug Trafficking
Human Rights and Criminal Justice: International Treaties and Agreements
Case Studies: Comparative Analysis of Criminal Justice in Selected Countries
Challenges of Globalization: Addressing Legal and Jurisdictional Issues
Conclusion: The Quest for Effective Global Criminal Justice Solutions

Gangs in Inner City Community

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

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Matthew Desmond’s Eviction: a Critical Analysis

Wrongful convictions in criminal justice system, racial discrimination in the us criminal justice, the role of the jury system, let us write you an essay from scratch.

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

Victimology: Concept, Definition, Paradigms and Paradoxes

Problems and reforms needed: how to improve the criminal justice system, corruption in a criminal justice system, the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The U.s. Criminal Justice System and Its Phases

The criminal justice system in the uk, personal writing: criminal justice career choices, american criminal justice system: the different stages of an arrest, mass incarceration, criminal justice system, and racial inequality in the united states, from toxic friends to criminal justice, intelligence, probation and prisons in criminal justice, accountability of criminal activity by minors, the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, police brutality in the us: history and ways to improve, the crime of theft through the marxism theory and merton’s strain theory, exclusionary rule in america: pros and cons, why capital punishment should be legalized, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, criminal careers: how they are produced, the importance of youth diversion & current conditions of diversion programs in victoria, the effectiveness of rehabilitation vs harsh punishment, dostoevsky’s view of submission, racial bias in the u.s. criminal justice system, difficulties faced by the criminal justice system in responding to sex offenders.

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions.

Law enforcement agencies, usually the police. Courts and accompanying prosecution and defence lawyers. Agencies for detaining and supervising offenders, such as prisons and probation agencies.

Goals of criminal justice include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims.

Relevant topics

Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Justice System
Mass Incarceration
Criminal Behavior
Forensic Science
Criminal Profiling
Criminology
Criminal Investigation
Criminal Procedure

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

No need to pay just yet!

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

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

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

4168 Accesses

16 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.

Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression

Gehan Gunatilleke

Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review

Charlotte Gill, David Weisburd, … Trevor Bennett

Research Methods for Public Policy

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

Volunteering
Translating
Take Action
Urgent Appeals
Press Releases
Hunger Alerts
Forwarded News
Compression
Orthotics and Insoles
Foot Health blog
Email Us At [email protected]
Call Us At +(852) 2698 6339

[email protected]

Ethics in Action
Human Rights Correspondence School
TORTURE: Asian and Global Perspectives

Six suggestions to improve the criminal justice system of the Philippines

Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong

The Asian Legal Resource Centre and Asian Human Rights Commission call for the following steps to be taken as top priorities in order to address the grave problems afflicting the criminal justice system of the Philippines, which deeply undermine the possibility of all persons in the country obtaining their fundamental human rights and cause a loss of respect and expectations in the role of institutions for the rule of law in the Philippines and the functioning of the state itself.

1. An independent commission be established with the guidance and technical support of key United Nations agencies and other international bodies, comprising of senior judges, competent jurists, reputed academics and representatives from civil society, including human rights organizations, to undertake a comprehensive review of the country’s criminal justice system, and specifically the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cases, by way of public consultations and other relevant methods, in order to identify defects and hindrances and make full recommendations to the government and notify the public of the same, in full, within six months.

2. In the interim, both the Department of Justice and Philippine National Police clarify and widely publicise a rational, accessible and comprehensive system of witness and victim protection in accordance with the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981), together with an explicit set of operational guidelines for police that clearly stipulate officers’ duties to provide protection and spell out the sanctions that will be taken against officers failing to comply. A full review of the implementation and limitations of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act must be included as part of the work of the abovementioned independent commission.

3. The strengthening of agencies for the receipt, investigation and prosecution of complaints against police and military officials to ensure that grievances by the victims are properly addressed and acted upon and that complainants obtain adequate protection, and interim measures immediately introduced by which to hold police accountable, through an explicit set of sanctions, for cases that have been filed in court that are found to have been deliberately fabricated.

4. The use of labelling by the armed forces and other agencies be brought to an immediate end by an explicit directive from the government that the practice is prohibited and that officials found responsible for such practices will be removed from their positions and investigated for criminal liability in subsequent killings, attempted killings or other incidents that may have occurred in consequence.

5. The findings of the Melo Commission be followed by immediate investigations and prosecutions of persons identified as responsibile for extrajudicial killings and other abuses, whether directly or by virtue of command responsibility.

6. The enactment of domestic laws and establishing of implementing agencies in accordance with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signing of the new International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, implementation of the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee of December 2003 and issuance of a standing invitation to all United Nations human rights experts to visit the country.

News Filter

Get involved, take action here.

Make a difference. You are just a few clicks away from making a contribution to Human Rights work

Subscribe for mail

Follow ahrc, get involved, journals & magazines.

Torture: Asian and Global
Perspectives

Contact Information

Asian Human Rights Commission G/F, 52 Princess Margaret Road Ho Man Tin, Kowloon Hong Kong Tel: +(852) 2698 6339 Fax: +(852) 2698 6367

Accessibility
Subscriptions
Subscription

A new wave of 'tough-on-crime' laws aim to intimidate criminals. Experts are skeptical.

A recent wave of new policies and ballot measures makes it clear : Many politicians across the country think crime is out-of-control and tougher laws will help fix the problem.

From Louisiana to California, efforts to increase criminal penalties and give more power to police have made it on the books as politicians say they want to make their streets safer. Most Americans (58%), meanwhile, now think the country is not tough enough on crime, a reversal from just a few years earlier (41%), according to public opinion polling from Gallup .

The most recent wave of laws extend to even liberal enclaves like San Francisco, a marked turn from reforms passed years ago in the wake of George Floyd's murder, which sparked a mass awakening to the inequities of the criminal justice system.

Efforts to crack down on crime, commonly called "tough-on-crime" laws, have been studied for years and have been found to boost the number of people in jail, but there's little evidence that they're effective crime deterrent, experts say. That's in part because most people who commit crime aren’t thinking about the penalties for their actions.

Tough-on-crime laws attempt to solve crime by stigmatizing people who commit crimes rather than addressing the root causes, driving mass incarceration and disrupting families and communities while heavily impacting people of color, said Shari Stone-Mediatore, the cofounder of advocacy group Parole Illinois and a professor at Ohio-Wesleyan University.

“It’s not a productive way to deal with social problems” like drug addiction or unemployment, Stone-Mediatore said.

'A stunning turnabout': Voters and lawmakers across US move to reverse criminal justice reform

Because the latest wave of laws follow widespread criminal justice reforms, some experts note the new laws may not be as extreme as some past crime crackdowns.

"They're not going back to the way it was before," said Adam Gelb, President and CEO of the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice . Many recent tough-on-crime laws are essentially rolling back some of the most controversial reforms, "rather than completely rejecting a balanced approach."

He also acknowledged that some policies that have popped up recently may be intended to send a message about crime tolerance rather than stop crime directly.

‘Restored law and order’: Crime rates prompting concern by politicians

Crime rates fluctuate based on innumerable factors, which the U.S. has seen throughout history, according to Jeffrey Bellin, a professor at the William & Mary Law School and the author of “Mass Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became Addicted to Prisons and Jails and How It Can Recover.”

National data on crime rates shows that while crime went up during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has mostly returned to pre-pandemic levels or below. FBI crime reports show that violent crimes in particular, which jumped in 2020, have come back down. In 2022, there was a 6.1% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Rape decreased 5.4% and aggravated assault dropped 1.1%, the data shows.

Yet robbery increased 1.3%. Property crimes overall increased 7.1% in 2022, with motor vehicle thefts showing the biggest increase at 10.9%. Carjackings increased 8.1% from 2021, including those that led to injury.

“The COVID pandemic was such a shock to the system that it created all sorts of distortions, not just in terms of how people were behaving,” but also in how policing of communities was carried out, Bellin said.

In Louisiana, which just overhauled its criminal justice system and reversed previous efforts at reform in a special session, crime rates have followed a similar pattern, but the state has had one of the highest homicide rates in the country in recent years.

“(C)riminals have been thriving while our law enforcement officers are more demoralized than ever,” Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, both Republicans, said in an opinion article published by USA TODAY’s Network in Louisiana.

“With this Special Session, the Louisiana Legislature restored law and order and put criminals on notice that they will face punishments for their crimes,” they said.

Among the legislation passed: laws that will treat all 17-year-olds who commit crimes as adults, harsher penalties for carjackings and a minimum of 25 years in jail in cases where someone distributes fentanyl in a way that appeals to children, such as the shape, color, taste or packaging design.

Meanwhile in California, San Francisco voted for two propositions that give police more leeway to pursue suspects in vehicles and expand the use of drones and surveillance cameras, and that require welfare recipients to undergo drug treatment. In Washington, D.C., the city council approved public safety measures including establishing “drug-free zones” to target drug-related loitering.

In Oregon, the first state to decriminalize illicit drugs three years ago , politicians have reinstated criminal penalties for possession of some drugs.

READ MORE: 'A stunning turnabout': Voters and lawmakers across US move to reverse criminal justice reform

Low-level offenses often targeted in crime crackdowns

When elected officials want to crack down on crime rates, they often choose to implement harsher sentences for crimes, including lower-level offenses, leading to longer prison sentences and more people in prison. The hope is that keeping criminals off the streets will lessen the amount of crime that is committed, and deter others from committing crime.

“Tough on crime in this country is a way of thinking about how to deal with social problems that became strongly articulated in the late 70s and 80s,” Stone-Mediatore said. “Since then, study after study has shown that it does not work.”

A good example of a tough-on-crime approach is the U.S. war on drugs that saw a sharp increase in the number of people sent to prison for drug offenses starting in the 70s, Bellin said. Yet that didn’t reduce the availability of drugs or the number of people using them, Bellin said.

Tough-on-crime laws often target crimes that are easier for police to detect, like drug offenses, rather than the types of crimes that people most care about, like sexual violence and murder, Bellin said.

When considering what effect tough-on-crime laws have, Bellin said, “what we really mean is tough on the people we catch.”

Want to prevent crime? Make people believe they will be caught, research suggests.

According to Stone-Mediatore and Bellin, research shows people care about getting caught and often have a warped sense of whether they will be.

But laws that increase prison sentences don’t inherently deter them, because the people potentially committing crimes may not know about what those new penalties are.

The National Institute of Justice , a body of the U.S. Department of Justice, found in a 2016 analysis of a wide body of research that:

The severity and length of punishment is a less effective deterrent than the certainty of being caught. Police can deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught.
A prison sentence for every person convicted of a crime is not effective at deterring crime. Rather, people who go to prison may learn more effective crime strategies while they’re in prison.
Research doesn’t prove that the death penalty deters people from committing homicides.

What can result in reduced violent crimes like murder is expanding law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute those more serious crimes rather than focusing on lower-level crimes like drug offenses.

“If it's likely that you'll get caught for committing a crime, you're less likely to commit the crime,” Bellin said, regardless of how stiff the penalty is.

Contributing: Kinsey Crowley, USA TODAY; The Associated Press

IMAGES

The criminal justice system
⛔ Ideas for criminal justice research papers. ️ 60 Best Criminal
Essay On The Sentencing Of The Criminal Justice System
The Process of the Criminal Justice Process Free Essay Example
Online Criminal Justice Essay Writing Service UK
Write My Essay Online for Cheap

VIDEO

The Criminal Justice System Assumes That A Man Is The Criminal
Criminal justice system / FIR

COMMENTS

How can we improve the criminal justice system?
Beyond building the database of traffic stops, Goel and his colleagues are using statistical tools to improve other aspects of the judicial system. In one effort, the researchers are working with the district attorney of a large city to improve pre-trial detention practices. In many cases, people arrested on minor crimes cannot afford to make ...
How can we improve our criminal justice system?
Legal scholar Herbert L. Packer described two models of the criminal justice system: the crime-control model and the due-process model. The crime-control model focuses on harsh policies, laws and regulations. Its goal is to create swift and severe punishments for offenders. The due-process model, on the other hand, aims to promote policies that ...
A better path forward for criminal justice: Changing prisons to help
Prison culture and environment are essential to public health and safety. While much of the policy debate and public attention of prisons focuses on private facilities, roughly 83 percent of the ...
how to improve the criminal justice system essay
Improving Police-Community Relations. Another important issue facing the criminal justice system is improving police-community relations. This includes building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, and addressing issues of excessive use of force and discrimination by police officers.
How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Free Essay Example
Essay, Pages 5 (1109 words) Views. 5. The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crimes and impose sanctions on those who violate the law. There is not a single criminal justice system in the United States, but many kinds of individual systems. The functioning of the criminal justice ...
Problems and Reforms Needed: How to Improve the Criminal Justice System
Across the country, there are police officers stimulating trust by honorably preforming their duties and demonstrating that it is possible to prevent and discourage crime without the use of excessive force; however, racial bias, stereotyping, and the "blue wall of silence" has led to centuries of over policing, excessive force, and unnecessary shootings.
A better path forward for criminal justice: Conclusion
The essays in this volume and the recommended supplemental readings provide much food for thought about the major areas of criminal justice reform that should be at the top of the nation's agenda.
Essay: How court-watching can make our justice system fairer
Court-watching makes our justice system fairer and builds an educated public. Getting a complete cross-section of society into the courtroom as spectators will reduce the alienation felt by many of us when we report for jury duty. It will help the court feel like a community institution. Most importantly, it will present the public with a real ...
How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical
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 ...
(PDF) How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and
criminal justice reform more eﬀective. These practical considerations included. variation and complexity in the criminal justice policy environment, problem fram-. ing and policy content, policy ...
Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities
This essay offers some reflections on the "Waged Wars" and the efforts to identify "What Works" based on nearly 40 years of work evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. Keywords: Criminal Justice Reform, War on Drugs, War on Crime, US Correctional. The last fifty-plus years have seen considerable efforts and resources expended to ...
How to Improve the Criminal Justice System
Words: 1100 (2 pages) Download. Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student. The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crimes and impose sanctions on those who violate the law. There is not a single criminal justice system in the United States, but many kinds of individual ...
Effectiveness and fairness of the justice system
Justice systems serve as key pillars to safeguard rights and guarantee that the legal needs of citizens are met. The effective and fair justice system requires consideration of the full continuum of services, ranging from accessibility of legal information and legal assistance to formal (such as courts) and alternative dispute resolution, and ...
Essay on Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system is made up of three main parts. These are the police, the courts, and corrections. The police are responsible for enforcing the law. They are the ones who catch people who break the law. After catching these people, the police hand them over to the courts. The courts then decide if the person is guilty or not.
How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Essay
There are several ways in which the criminal justice system can be improved to make it more effective and fair. Eliminating Bias. One of the most important steps that can be taken to improve the criminal justice system is to eliminate bias. This can be done by implementing policies ensuring that people are treated fairly regardless of race ...
Ways To Improve Our Criminal Justice System
The final step in remolding our criminal justice system is the importance of criminal justice reform advocacy. We must continuously convince our state and federal governments to make and sign effective criminal justice reform laws. Advocacy for issues is one of the best tools we as people have to make a change.
Transforming the System
The United States is saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources and disrupts communities. People of color, particularly Native American, black, and Latino people, have felt the impact of discrimination within the criminal justice system. ... This information will guide our efforts to improve the ...
Free Criminal Justice Essays and Research Papers on
Essay Title 1: Reforming the Criminal Justice System: Challenges, Progress, and the Road Ahead. Thesis Statement: This essay examines the challenges within the criminal justice system, the progress made in recent years, and the ongoing efforts required to reform and ensure a fair and equitable system for all. Outline: Introduction
Criminal Justice System Essay [Free Example]
This essay discusses how the criminal justice system is an important part of the government, allowing for the prosecution, imprisonment, and rehabilitation of criminals. Apart from the court system and police, the criminal justice system has other components like criminal justice agencies that provide additional information for researchers to form studies and articles to help improve the ...
How The Criminal Justice System Has Improved
The criminal justice system has improved since the time of Jill Meagher's case (2012). According to the 2016-17 annual, they have increased the number of cases finalised. This is a successful change as the Court is resolving more cases quicker and more efficiently, in comparison to the previous years. According to other cases shown by the ...
How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical
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 ...
Improving the Criminal Justice System
Improving the Criminal Justice System. Senator Jim Webb crusades against prison overcrowding citing a need to repair the criminal justice system by recalculating "who goes to prison and for how long" (Webb, 2009, p. 4). The U. S. Justice Department and Senator Webb agree that drug abuse and addiction results in an overburdened justice system.
Six suggestions to improve the criminal justice system of the
Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong. The Asian Legal Resource Centre and Asian Human Rights Commission call for the following steps to be taken as top priorities in order to address the grave problems afflicting the criminal justice system of the Philippines, which deeply undermine the possibility of all persons in the country obtaining their fundamental human rights and cause a loss of ...
Will backtracking on criminal justice reform cut crime?
FBI crime reports show that violent crimes in particular, which jumped in 2020, have come back down. In 2022, there was a 6.1% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Rape decreased 5.4 ...

How can we improve the criminal justice system?

Precinct or prejudice?

Predicting crime

Related Departments

The future of computer music

Elusive 3D printed nanoparticles could lead to new shapeshifting materials

The future of pediatric pain

How can we improve our criminal justice system?

Republish this article

Related stories

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

Policing women’s sexuality in the name of protection

Why do young offenders return to prison?

how to improve the criminal justice system essay

Discrimination and Bias

Addressing Discrimination and Bias

Alternative Approaches to Punishment

Improving Access to Justice

Improving Police-Community Relations

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Listen Live

Here and Now

If more people attended criminal court, we could advance criminal justice. Here’s how

Related Content

You may also like

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Associated Data

Part I: Waging “War”

Crime and Correctional Population Trends

Responding with Toughness (and Dollars)

A Recapitulation

Part II: Finding “What Works”

Challenges: Why Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform So Difficult?

Conclusions

Data Availability

Essay on Criminal Justice System

100 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The Role of Police

The Court System

Corrections and Punishment

Importance of the Criminal Justice System

250 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

The Role of the Police

The Courts and Their Function

Correctional Facilities

The Importance of the Criminal Justice System

500 Words Essay on Criminal Justice System

Parts of the Criminal Justice System

Why is the Criminal Justice System Important?

Challenges in the Criminal Justice System

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How To Improve The Criminal Justice System Essay

Introduction

Criminal Justice System Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Ways To Improve Our Criminal Justice System

Related Topics

Transforming the System

Criminal Justice Policy Solutions

The Artist Statement - Alixa Garcia

Essays on Criminal Justice

Essay Title 2: Criminal Justice and Civil Rights: Analyzing the Intersection, Historical Struggles, and Contemporary Debates

Essay Title 3: International Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Comparative Analysis of Legal Systems and Global Challenges

Most Popular Criminal Justice Essay Topics in 2024

Gangs in Inner City Community

Matthew Desmond’s Eviction: a Critical Analysis

Victimology: Concept, Definition, Paradigms and Paradoxes

The U.s. Criminal Justice System and Its Phases

Relevant topics

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

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression

Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review

Research Methods for Public Policy

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

I. Rationales of Punishment

II. Narratives of Criminal Justice

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

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