Exam 1 Flashcards
In general, how do crime victimization rates differ between the U.S. and other Western, developed countries?
While crime rates in the U.S. are pretty even with other Western countries, the incarceration rate is way higher than in the same countries. In these Western countries, the incarceration rate has either stayed stable or decreased but the U.S. is still increasing.
How do homicide rates in the U.S. and other Western countries today compare to those from 200 years ago?
Homicide rates in the U.S. and other Western countries have decreased significantly from 200 years ago. They are estimated to have declined by over 90%. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the rates were above 30 per 100,000; now, they are 1 per 100,000. That is 30 times higher than before.
How has the U.S. incarceration rate changed since 1925? How does the U.S. incarceration rate compare to other Western countries?
From 1925 to the 1970s, the U.S. incarceration rate was stable until it drastically increased. This led to a significantly higher rate compared to most Western countries. It is stated that the “War on Drugs” policies led to harsher sentencing that caused this increase in incarceration.
Why are rising crime, harsh public attitudes, cynical politics, and growing fear of change among the public unpersuasive explanations of why America has such punitive punishment policies?
They are unpersuasive explanations of why America has such punitive punishment policies because all other Countries could give the same explanations.
What are some socioeconomic, legal, and political characteristics of countries with harsh penal policies and high imprisonment rates?
High-income inequality, Not trusting and illegitimacy of institutions, a weak welfare state, and a publicized CJS. In most countries, they do not elect the sheriff and judges. These are professionalized CJS, a lot of the problems the U.S. has is that it is a publicized CJS. Also, consensual political cultures.
Explain four factors that have contributed to the U.S. falling at the harsh end of the distribution among Western democracies?
- “Paranoid Style” politics - It views politics as self-righteous, personal, and uncompromising
- Manichean moralism associated with Protestant fundamentalism and intolerance - Manichean means light and day; puritanical views of good and evil, a more superior - “Our side is the right side” it becomes easier to punish others if you view them from the other side
- Obsolete constitution - Product of its time, fragmented government (Hyperlocal), Elected judges and prosecutors, and countries that run off older documents tend to be more punitive.
- The history of race relations.
What is the difference between a “traditional” approach to studying the criminal justice system and a “critical” approach?
The traditional approach to studying the criminal justice system is an isolation approach. It focuses primarily on individual criminal behavior and the legal system itself. The Critical approach is making assumptions. It examines the systemic inequalities and power dynamics based on data, logic, science, and values.
What is a crime? How does behavior become defined as “criminal?” Compare consensus and conflict approaches to these questions.
Crime is a criminal behavior that is considered harmful to society and is prohibited by the Law making it punishable. The behavior becomes defined as criminal when it violates a codified law and is deemed socially unacceptable. The consensus approach is that crime is acts that most of the society would agree are harmful and illegal. The conflict approach sees crime as a product of power dynamics.
What are some steps you might take if your goal was to maintain a system that ensured a permanent class of criminals?
Some steps I would take if my goal was to maintain a system that ensured ap permanent class of criminals would be to make more things illegal, create incentives to lock more people up, make the system cruel/unjust, never forgive, stigmatize (fair to train of employ people with records), and construct a system with employees.
How does our current system distort the reality of crime?
We learn about CJS through TV and media, knowing people who’ve been in the system or have experienced it ourselves, and school. It gave us inaccurate depictions that reflect certain values and how the CJS does no wrong and always protects. This is based on myths.
What is “the rule of law?”
The rule of law is the principle that everyone, including the government, must follow the law. It means that the law applies equally to everyone.
We have different rules of law and they are inconsistent. What are the different standards in constitutional law versus criminal law?
The constitutional law is strict scrutiny, it is where the constitutional rights are so important that the state has a high burden to uphold those rights. The state must show a compelling reason why they want to deny a person a constitutional right. Criminal law has a rational basis. This is a lower standard that once ap person is convicted; there only needs to be a rational basis for punishment. It means you cannot deny liberty (a constitutional right) before conviction but you do not need any reason to deny it after conviction.
Differentiate between “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis” standards.
Strict scrutiny is a highly rigorous legal standard used by courts to review laws that potentially infringe on fundamental rights or discriminate against protected classes. Rational basis is a much more lenient standard that only requires the government to show a legitimate government purpose and a rational relationship between the law and that purpose.
How can prioritizing criminal law over constitutional law lead to seemingly irrational outcomes in the criminal justice system?
Prioritizing criminal law over constitutional law can lead away from the protected rights of the cause and not ensure a fair trial.
How is the law enforced? Is it neutral? How does law enforcement reflect choices? Who makes these choices?
The law is enforced through police, judges, prosecutors, etc. No, the law enforced is not neutral. It is all about choices. There is way more crime than can be controlled. Selective enforcement occurs when government officials exercise discretion which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the laws.
Why are system choices still viewed as legitimate?
The choices are viewed as legitimate through a conflict of interest (establishment interest benefit), cultural and economic adaptions, easy to punish the powerless, and obscure the relationship between crime and punishment (Crime and punishment are related but more punishment does not mean less crime).
What does Karakatsanis think about reformers and reform argued by punishment bureaucrats?
Karakatsanis thinks that punishment bureaucrats who argued for reform are desensitized to its everyday brutality and helped preserve the unjust and cruelty of the system. Those who are calling themselves reformers are the ones who created that bureaucracy and profited off of it. They are comfortable on the way our society looks. They also do not want to lower crime because then their jobs would not exist anymore.
What does traditional reform argued by punishment bureaucrats look like?
It is a silo problem. Just look at problems within the CJS itself. The issue is that the problems in the CJS are also affected by the society outside it. They also accept the assumptions of the system. They have hoarding control where they don’t want you to solve the problem, they want to solve it themself. Growing the bureaucracy (give us money), Lack of reparations, and reinvestment.
How can we recognize real reform?
Racial disproportionate of minorities would shrink and you would see fewer people in the system but this would mean letting serious offenders out to reduce the rate of how it was before.
Karakatsanis argues that American lawyers have failed in their roles as part of the criminal legal system. What are the two key failures?
- Intellectual failure (2 types) Failure to scrutinize the evidence and logic underlying the system. Lawyers haven’t confronted the suffering; they get used to the system and become a part of it, it is also about legal philosophy and not the actual consequences.
- Failure of practice - failure to ensure that the system functions consistent with rights and values.
Why don’t lawyers and the public-at-large seem to care about “human caging.” Why is that a problem?
They do not care about human caging due to systemic desensitization, lack of understanding about its scale and impact, the perception that the CJS is functioning as intended even when it results in disproportionate imprisonment, and particularly impacting marginalized communities.
This is a problem because it normalized mass incarceration, caused blindness to systemic issues, lack of awareness and education, and overlooked the potential for rehabilitation.
What is the legal concept of “strict scrutiny” and why might applying it to punishment reduce mass incarceration?
The legal concept of strict scrutiny is that constitutional rights are so important that the state has a high burden to uphold those rights unless there are compelling reasons to deny them. It could reduce mass incarceration due to the in-proportional aspect of sentencing in the U.S., the incarceration would be seen as an act against constitutional rights without a compelling reason to why.
Karakatsanis argues that there is a divergence between “the law as written” and “the law as lived.” Provide some examples of this divergence.
Some examples of this divergence are excessive bail practices, plea bargaining pressure, racial disparities in policing, inadequate legal representation for the indigent, and mass incarceration.
What is required to overcome the failure of American lawyers?
Improving legal education to prioritize practical skills promotes ethical conduct, lowers bail, increases access to legal services for undeserving communities, and stops the plea bargaining pressure.
