The Money and Politics of Criminal Justice Policy

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page i

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page ii

The Money and Politics of Criminal Justice Policy

O. Hayden Griffin, III Vanessa H. Woodward

John J. Sloan, III

Carolina Academic PressDurham, North Carolina

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page iii

Copyright © 2016Carolina Academic Press

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Griffin, O. Hayden, III, author. | Woodward, Vanessa H., author. |Sloan, John J., author.

Title: The money and politics of criminal justice policy / O. Hayden Griffin,III, Vanessa H. Woodward, and John J. Sloan, III.

Description: Durham, North Carolina : Carolina Academic Press, [2016] |Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2015044376 | ISBN 9781611635171 (alk. paper)Subjects: LCSH: Criminal justice, Administration of--United States--His-tory.

| Crime--United States--History. | Crime prevention--UnitedStates--History. | Law enforcement--United States--History. | UnitedStates--Politics and government.

Classification: LCC HV9950 .G75 2016 | DDC 364.973--dc23LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015044376

Carolina Academic Press700 Kent Street

Durham, NC 27701Telephone (919) 489-7486

Fax (919) 493-5668www.cap-press.com

Printed in the United States of America

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page iv

To anyone who has questioned the process.

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page v

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page vi

Contents

List of Tables xv

Preface xvii

Chapter 1 · Government and Politics in the United States 3Chapter Outline 3Learning Objectives 3Introduction 4States’ Rights and State Autonomy 6Federalism, the States, and Criminal Justice 7

Federalism 9Interpreting the Constitution 10The Constitution and Criminal Justice Issues 11

Expanding the Power of the Federal Government in Criminal Justice 13Interstate Commerce and Taxing Powers 14

The Mann Act 14The Harrison Narcotic Act 16The Gun- Free School Zones Act of 1990 18Contemporary Issues of States’ Autonomy 19

The Courts and Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights 20Federal Grants to States 22The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 24

Key Terms 25Key People 26Key Cases 26Discussion Questions 27Notes 27

Chapter 2 · The Political Economy of Crime 33Chapter Outline 33Learning Objectives 33Introduction 34

vii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page vii

Punishment and Politics 34Cesare Beccaria 34The Social Contract 37Law and Social Solidarity 38Conflict and Lawmaking 40Conflict and Politics 41Conflict and Marxism 43The Influence of Marxism in Criminological Theory 45

Power and Control in the United States 47Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws 47Discrimination and Legislation 48Socioeconomic Status and the Law 49Labeling Theories of Crime 50Strain Theories of Crime 51

Conclusion 54Key Terms 54Key People 55Key Cases 55Discussion Questions 56Notes 56

Chapter 3 · A Brief History of the United States Criminal Justice System 61

Chapter Outline 61Learning Objectives 61Introduction 62Colonial America 62

Law during Colonial Times 63Law Enforcement in the 20th Century 66

Courts 66Courts in Colonial Times 67Growth and Expansion of the Courts 70

Police 74Police in Colonial Times 74Growth and Expansion of Police 75

Corrections 79Corrections in Colonial Times 80Growth and Expansion of Corrections 84

Conclusion 90Key Terms 91

viii CONTENTS

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page viii

Key People 92Key Cases 92Discussion Questions 93Notes 93

Chapter 4 · The Cost of Crime 101Chapter Outline 101Learning Objectives 101Introduction 101The True Cost of Crime 102

Federal and State Expenditures for Criminal Justice 104Interpreting the Cost of Crime 105Jobs in the Criminal Justice System 108

Crime and Crime Victims 110Cost of Violent Crime 112Cost of Property Crime and White- Collar Crime 114Fear of Crime 116The Benefits of Crime 117

Conclusion 118Key Terms 119Key People 119Discussion Questions 119Notes 120

Chapter 5 · The Mythology (and Reality) of Crime and Justice in the United States 123

Chapter Outline 123Learning Objectives 123Introduction 124

Mythmaking 125Themes of Crime Myths 128

Crime Myths and the Media 129Moral Panics 131The Myth of Crime Itself 132The Myth of Criminal Groups 132The Myth of the Crack Epidemic 134The Myth of Crack Babies 135The Myth of Stranger Danger 136

Conclusion 138Key Terms 139Key People 139

CONTENTS ix

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page ix

Discussion Questions 139Notes 140

Chapter 6 · The Politicization of Crime and Justice in the United States 145

Chapter Outline 145Learning Objectives 145Introduction 146

Criminal Justice Interest Groups 146Research on Criminal Justice Interest Groups 147Policymaking and Interest Groups 149

Single- Issue Interest Groups 150Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) 150Amethyst Initiative 154The Clery Center for Security on Campus 155Firearm Advocacy Groups 157National Rifle Association 158Handgun Control, Inc. 159

General Interest Groups 160American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 160Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) 161Amnesty International 161RAND Corporation 162The Heritage Foundation 163

Conclusion 164Key Terms 164Key People 164Discussion Questions 165Notes 165

Chapter 7 · The Political Economy of Policing 169Chapter Outline 169Learning Objectives 170Introduction 170Law Enforcement Agencies 170

Federal Law Enforcement 171State Law Enforcement 172Local Law Enforcement 173Municipal Police Departments 173Specialized Law Enforcement Agencies 174

x CONTENTS

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page x

Private Policing Organizations 176Police Unions 178

Employees of Law Enforcement Agencies 179The Importance of Rank in Law Enforcement 180Civilian Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies 181

Budgets, Costs, and Profits 182The Costs of Policing: Vehicles and Equipment 182Funding the Police 183Federal Grants to Fund Local Police 183Federal Grants and Moral Panics 185Federal Grants and the Militarization of the Police 186Funding Law Enforcement Agencies: Traffic Citations 187Funding Police Departments Using Asset Forfeiture:

Policing For Profit? 189Politics and Current Issues 191Conclusion 193Key Terms 193Key People 194Discussion Questions 194Notes 195

Chapter 8 · The Political Economy of Courts 201Chapter Outline 201Learning Objectives 202Introduction 202

Criminal Courts 203United States Supreme Court 204Federal Magistrate Judges 207Federal District Courts 207Federal Appeals Courts 207State Court Systems 209State Trial Courts 210State Appeals Courts and Courts of Last Resort 211Juvenile Courts 214 Problem- Solving Courts 215

Prosecutors 217Federal Prosecutors 217State Prosecutors 218Local Prosecutors 219

Defense Attorneys 222

CONTENTS xi

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xi

Public Defender Offices 223The Defender Services Program 224Assigned or Contracted Counsel 224

Professional Associations for Attorneys 225American Bar Association 225National Association of Attorneys General 226National District Attorneys Association 226National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 226

Employees of the Courts 227Federal Judges 227Administrative Office of the United States Courts 227Federal Law Clerks 227Assistant United States Attorneys 228

State Court Employees 228Judges 228Intermediate Appeals Courts 230Courts of Last Resort 230State Court Support Staff 230State Prosecutors 231

Budgets, Costs, and Profits 232Recovering Court Costs 233Expert Witnesses 234Legal Search Engines 234

Politics and Current Issues 235Conclusion 239Key Terms 240Key Cases 241Key People 241Discussion Questions 242Notes 242

Chapter 9 · The Political Economy of Corrections 249Chapter Outline 249Learning Objectives 249Introduction 250Corrections in America: An Overview 251

The Reach of Corrections in America 251Federal Corrections 257State Corrections: Prisons and Probation/Parole Services 259Local Corrections: Jails and Lockups 261

xii CONTENTS

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xii

United States Marshals Service 263Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections 264Private Corrections Companies 267Correctional Advocacy Groups 269Budgets, Costs, and Profits 270Politics and Current Issues 275Conclusion 279Kay Terms 279Key People 280Discussion Questions 280Notes 281

Chapter 10 · Conclusion 287Law and Policy are a Function of a Political Process 287

Freedom Ebbs and Evolves 289Punishments Evolve 290

Crime Control as Industry 291Notes 292

Index 293

CONTENTS xiii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xiii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xiv

List of Tables

Table 1. 1. Percentage Distribution of Expenditures for the Justice System in 2009 5

Table 4.1. Expenditures by State (by 10,000) 106

Table 4.2. Market Values of the Most Profitable Companies Internationally 108

Table 4.3. Law Enforcement Employees within the United States 110

Table 4.4. U.S. Job Position Availability in Criminal Justice by Sector 111

Table 4.5. U.S. Job Positions Availability in Largest Companies 112

Table 7.1. SecurityDegreeHub.com’s Five Most Powerful Security Companies in the World 178

Table 8.1. Cases Heard by Federal Magistrate Judges in 2012 208

Table 8.2. Cases Heard by the Federal District Courts in 2012 209

Table 8.3. Appeals Heard by the Federal Circuit Courts in 2012 210

Table 8.4. Types of Cases Heard by State Court Systems 211

Table 8.5. Appeals Courts by State 213

Table 8.6. Judges by Court and State 229

Table 9.1. State Correctional Employees 254

Table 9.2. Federal Bureau of Prisons FY 2014 Operating Budget 257

xv

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xv

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xvi

Preface

When people think of criminal justice, a number of ideas come to mind.Typically, none of these ideas are wrong, but they only paint part of the pic-ture. Criminal justice comprises a myriad of philosophies, organizations, andsystems, making it challenging to define. Whether speaking of criminal jus-tice in the context of education or government, its meaning is multifaceted.At a very basic level, one may argue that a criminal justice system is designedto increase social control, through both proactive and reactive means. Specifi-cally, a system of criminal justice should protect its citizens from harm (proac-tively) and enforce control by punishing those who have violated the law(reactively). In the United States, theoretically, the system is assumed to pro-vide the same rights and protections to all; however, some may argue thatmoney has immense influence on the system. For example, some argue themore money and privilege a person has, the more likely they are to receiveprotection by the criminal justice system, yet escape liability when they are ac-cused of a crime. Moreover, the cost of crime control can be exorbitant, mak-ing it challenging for the criminal justice system to operate within its budgetaryconfines.

Defining Criminal Justice

Unfortunately, this description only scratches the surface of the complexi-ties of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system incorporatesmultiple roles that encompass all stages of social control, from the enforce-ment of criminal law to the various methods used to punish and/or rehabili-tate those who have been convicted of violating these laws. While the systemwould ideally function independently of political and monetary influence, theirinfluence is evident within each stage of the system. Even more problematic isthat at times, money both obstructs and facilitates the goals of the system.There is a symbiotic relationship between those who have money and the sys-tem: each relies heavily on the other.

xvii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xvii

Within this text, our goal is to provide readers with a critical analysis of therelationship among money, politics, and the criminal justice system by exam-ining the influence of money and politics on the agencies and processes thatcriminal justice comprises. Each of the chapters that follow addresses howmoney and politics influence an agency (e.g., police departments) or a stagein the criminal justice process. However, before we provide a brief descriptionof each chapter, we would like to provide some background information thatwe believe is necessary to understand our perspective on these issues.

Regarding the formation of law, many philosophers from the Age of En-lightenment have argued that humans should willingly relinquish part of theirsovereignty to the state in exchange for societal protection from harm, an ideaknown as the social contract. Decisions regarding what behaviors should be pro-hibited operate through utilitarian ideals that are best administered through ademocratic process. If the majority of citizens believe that a behavior is harm-ful, legislation should be enacted prohibiting the behavior and, on the otherhand, those behaviors that are deemed acceptable should continue to be law-ful.

Why is there such a divide on the meaning of criminal justice? Theoreti-cally, justice should be representative of objectivity and righteousness. Yet, at-tempting to implement justice through a formal system muddles its meaning,primarily because of individuals’ varying status and power. Contrary to theideals of Enlightenment thinkers, some Marxist theorists would argue that no-tions of a social contract are a farce and what behaviors are legal or prohibitedis dictated by the ruling elite. In many instances, the ruling elite will pur-posefully criminalize behaviors in which the working class or poor are likely toengage for purposes of further strengthening the control that the ruling eliteexerts upon society.

Politics and the Constitution

Political power coupled with opposing political views also diminishes the ob-jectivity of the criminal justice system. Acts that seem universally wrong (suchas killing or raping an individual) can result in incredibly different punish-ments. These punishments boil down to the context of the act, the law, andthe predominant political beliefs during the time period in which the act oc-curred. For instance, if a killing was premeditated or particularly brutal, theoffender could be sentenced to life imprisonment, or depending on the cir-cumstances, could be put to death. On the other hand, a killing that occurred

xviii PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xviii

when a person was in the heat of passion is classified as manslaughter, notmurder, and carries a more lenient penalty. Sometimes, killing another humanbeing is not seen as an act of evil. Killing during war not only does not war-rant punishment— it can be revered as a heroic act. Additionally, if person Akilled person B because person B was threatening them with deadly force, thiswould be considered self- defense, and not only would the person who com-mitted the killing not be punished, their actions would typically be consideredjustified under the law.

When we deconstruct the details of varying punishments for varying crimes,it becomes difficult to justify the proposition that notions of crime and pun-ishment are universal or somehow based on what Aristotle called “natural law.”If principles of law are not universal or based upon some universal notions ofjustice, then perhaps we should look to other sources of law. One such exam-ple is the supreme document of law within the United States (the Constitu-tion). This document is so sacred that a signed copy of it is on display in theNational Archives in Washington, D.C., in a bulletproof case with inert gasesinside to preserve it. The document is so well protected that it can even belowered into a bomb shelter to ensure it will be preserved for future genera-tions (a little more extreme than a sign at a museum that reads “do not touchthe paintings”). Yet the Constitution was written exclusively by white men whoowned property (often referred to as the “Founding Fathers” or the “Framers”),the elite among the only class of people eligible to vote at the time. The Con-stitution replaced the former Articles of Confederation, which many peopleat the time believed had established an ineffective form of government that re-lied too heavily on the individual states and gave little authority to the federalgovernment. The Constitution established a stronger central government, butstill left some power to the individual states. Support for this change in gov-ernment was not universal. Supporters of the Constitution were known as“federalists,” and opponents of the Constitution were intuitively called “anti- federalists.”

Within Article Five of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers outlined theprocess by which the Constitution could be changed, known as “amending”the Constitution. Thus, before it could even be ratified, the Constitution ac-tually had to be amended. Some people who were fearful of a powerful cen-tral government had complained that the Constitution had failed to include alist of basic rights for citizens. This argument was quickly addressed by the ad-dition of ten amendments to the Constitution, which are collectively knownas the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights confers, among others, the seeminglysacred privileges of freedom of speech, the right to remain silent, and the pro-

PREFACE xix

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xix

tection against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet there are many exceptionsto these amendments. Seemingly, everyone knows that a person cannot claimfreedom of speech while yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. The right to re-main silent (“nor shall [a defendant] be compelled in any criminal case to bea witness against himself” is the actual text in the Fifth Amendment) only ap-plies to spoken testimony, and any recordings, writings, fingerprints, and/ orDNA evidence can be used against a person at trial. Regarding the protectionagainst cruel and unusual punishment, the United States Supreme Court andother lower courts often interpreted this protection based upon the standardof “evolving standards of decency.” Essentially, the Court tries to consider whatthe views of contemporary society are and if the punishment is essentially crueland unusual within a modern society.

After the Constitution was ratified, it was amended seventeen more times.Among the changes were the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slav-ery, the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted equal protection to peopleregardless of race, the Seventeenth Amendment, which made United StatesSenators directly elected by the people instead of by state legislatures, and theNineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The Twenty- First amendment actually repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which hadprohibited the manufacture or sale of alcohol within the United States. Thus,although the Constitution may well have been enacted “in order to form amore perfect union,” it was not universally enacted at the time; many peoplein the United States were excluded from taking part in creating the document;and the meaning of the words found in the document have often been dis-puted and required interpretation by the courts. If the document was in factsacred and based upon universal rights or natural law, perhaps it would beclearer in its meaning and would not have to be interpreted so frequently. Ad-ditionally, society’s ever- changing values have required changes to the Consti-tution.

Law, Social Control, and Criminal Justice

If we cannot ascertain a sense of natural law or what is right/ wrong throughsocietal beliefs or government, perhaps the only place left to look is religion.Many people have argued that legal codes reflect religious beliefs and values.Indeed, the Ten Commandments, at least in so- called Judeo- Christian coun-tries like the United States, have often been claimed by religious leaders andsome politicians as the foundation of any legal code. In countries such as Saudi

xx PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xx

Arabia, legal codes are partly, if not entirely, based on religious doctrine foundin the Qur’an and Hadith. The United States, which was founded by people whomost often had Judeo- Christian beliefs, can certainly claim some inspirationin various religious texts. Murder, theft, and many other behaviors are de-scribed as “crimes” in the Christian Bible. Although some actions, such as adul-tery, would probably be considered immoral in contemporary society, it isunlikely that a person would be prosecuted for them— unless the defendant wasa member of the United States military. Some actions, such as worshippingidols or practicing magic, would be considered immoral by only a small mi-nority of Christians in the United States, a country that encourages religiousfreedom. Although we still might look to religion to identify what behaviorsshould be considered a crime, the proper punishment for these crimes is an-other story. In the Bible, the most often prescribed punishments are death,monetary fines, or corporal punishment. Incarceration, one of the punish-ments used in modern times, was unknown in biblical times.

Although we often look to concepts of universal rights or natural law, con-stitutions and legal codes, or religion for inspiration in deciding what is morallyright and wrong, as well as criminally right and wrong, the ultimate answer issettled through a political process. Based upon American legal principles, be-fore a person can be punished by the state, there must first be a law that pro-hibits the behavior and there must be some stated penalty for the violation.This cannot occur unless a legislature passes a bill and a governor or the pres-ident signs the bill into law. If a proposed law is vetoed by the executive, thena legislature, through a supermajority vote (usually ⅔), can override the vetoand the bill becomes law. In some states, like California, laws can be enactedby ballot initiative. For this to occur, a sponsoring citizen will be required tocollect a certain number of signatures in support of the proposed initiativefrom other citizens who are registered to vote. If enough valid signatures aregathered, the ballot initiative will be put up for a vote at the next election. Ifa majority of voters approve of the initiative, it becomes law.

Not only must law be created within a political process, but criminal jus-tice issues can also become central in many political elections. In 1992, for ex-ample, while running for president of the United States, Bill Clinton oftenadvocated that 100,000 additional police officers should be hired to help con-trol burgeoning levels of crime.1 In 1995, the state of New York reinstitutedthe death penalty after an eighteen- year absence. Reinstituting the death penaltyhad been one of the central pledges on which Governor George Pataki hadbased his campaign.2 In 1993, while running for governor of Virginia, GeorgeAllen’s cornerstone campaign promise was to establish parole for incarcerated

PREFACE xxi

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxi

offenders.3 Aside from these examples, gun control, sex offender registries,drug testing of welfare recipients, restoration of voting rights for people withfelony convictions, victim’s rights, and many other issues have become im-portant issues in political campaigns. Not only are these issues important tothe general social welfare, but some criminal justice personnel— includingjudges, attorney generals, county sheriffs, and district attorneys— occupyelected positions. For the most part, candidates for these positions will bejudged solely based on the positions they take on issues relating to the crimi-nal justice system.

So how do politics affect a person’s beliefs about the criminal justice sys-tem? Elliott Currie equated political views with criminal justice beliefs by con-trasting “due process liberals” with “crime control conservatives.”4 Using HerbertPacker’s notion that competing values inform the operation of the criminaljustice system, what he labeled as “crime control” and “due process” modelsof criminal justice,5 Currie argued people who tended to be more liberal weremore likely to value human rights and believe that governments should be lesspunitive towards people who broke the law. People who were more conserva-tive would believe that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to re-duce crime and keep people safe. If that meant diminishing everyone’s civilrights, doing so was to achieve the goal of less crime.6 Yet, in reality, such easydistinctions are rare. Although the Republican Party has traditionally beenknown as the “law and order” party, that distinction has recently waned, asmore Republicans call for repealing mandatory sentences for low- level drugoffenders and the end of “three strikes and you’re out” laws. Beginning with theelection of Bill Clinton, Democratic candidates for major state and national of-fices have endorsed tactics associated with a crime control model. Further com-plicating the picture is the fact “libertarians” or “progressives” can be found inboth political parties. Libertarians are typically people who advocate for lim-iting government power in nearly all segments of society— economic, educa-tion, etc.— while progressives typically see government as the solution to socialills and advocate for increased government intervention in social problems. Inrecent times, Libertarians have complained about everything from what theyconsider harsh drug laws to policies that allow law enforcement to stop andfrisk people with little provocation. To Libertarians, these are examples of un-necessary government infringement on people’s liberty. Progressives actuallyagree with libertarians’ opinions on these issues, but for entirely different rea-sons. To them, rather than sending drug offenders to jails and/ or prisons, thecountry should embrace drug prevention measures such as expanded, state- sponsored drug rehabilitation. Regarding stop and frisk policies, while sup-

xxii PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxii

porting them in theory, progressives worry that such tactics unfairly targetracial or cultural minorities and the poor. Thus, political affiliation affectspeople’s views of the criminal justice system in ways beyond the simple “crimecontrol” or “due process” models posited by Packer.

Historical context is also important for understanding how political atti-tudes shape the passage of laws. Just like anything else, attitudes toward issuesin criminal justice trend and vary over time. For instance, not so long ago, ifa man had sex with a woman against her will, this situation was not reallythought of so much as a crime against the woman, but instead as a crimeagainst her father or husband (if she was married). Generally, members of so-ciety believed that if people knew the woman was no longer a virgin, regard-less of whether it was by choice, a father would have a difficult time marryingoff his daughter. If the woman was married, she was considered the propertyof her husband and the rape had caused his property to become damaged. So-cial attitudes about rape eventually began to change where both men andwomen perceived rape as a violent crime and the woman as the victim (nother husband or father), which led to rape being punishable by death until 1972,when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for rape was unconsti-tutional. In contemporary America, the punishment for rape (or lesser sexualassaults) can vary from probation to life imprisonment.7

Speaking on drug policy, the historian David Musto argued that Americanattitudes towards drugs are akin to a swinging pendulum. Some historical pe-riods have been marked by more tolerant attitudes towards drugs, while otherperiods are marked by stricter control of drugs. Musto noted that the late 1960sand 1970s were the most recent period of relative tolerance for drugs like mar-ijuana. It was during those decades that many states relaxed sentencing policyand some even decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana forpersonal use. The 1980s saw a backlash against drug use, partly as a result ofthe perceived excesses of the time. Much tougher sentences for drug offend-ers became the norm and decriminalization all but disappeared.8

Similar shifts in attitudes have also occurred regarding what should be theproper punishment for crime. Although many Americans believe incarcera-tion is both the norm and has existed for a long time, neither is the case. Fur-ther, policies resulting in mass incarceration are quite recent as well. Prior tothe 1980s, rehabilitation— rather than deterrence, incapacitation, or retribu-tion— was the guiding philosophy behind criminal sentencing policy. 9 How-ever, which of these justifications for criminal sanctions you believe is the most(or least) important is often shaped by your political views.

PREFACE xxiii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxiii

As stated earlier, money matters; it has an immense influence on criminaljustice policymaking. Prisons and jails do not appear out of thin air— theycost money. Money is not only required to build these facilities, but also tomaintain and staff them, and ensure the inmates living in them have access tothe basic necessities of food, clothing, and medical care. Not only do we pro-vide money to support prisons and jails, but for all other aspects of the crim-inal justice system as well: probation and parole officers, police officers, judges,prosecutors, clerks of the courts, and countless other people who are paidsalaries and benefits (e.g., medical and other benefits like retirement or dis-ability pay) for their work in law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. Allof these expenditures account for significant portions of local and state budg-ets (which can be cut during economic slowdowns or enhanced during peri-ods of economic growth).

Although criminal justice expenditures can be the target of budget cuts andsome people may even question the need to spend so much money maintain-ing the criminal justice system, there is another rationale for preserving thesystem. The criminal justice system creates jobs— a lot of them— not only forthe people who work in the system directly, but also for those who supportand provide secondary benefits to the system. When facilities need to be built,this will require architects, construction companies, and perhaps most im-portantly, workers who actually construct the facilities. Uniforms worn by in-mates and prisoners alike must be manufactured by textile companies. Foodfor inmates helps employ farmers. Automobiles for police officers are manu-factured by domestic car companies. The list of industries that both supportand are aided by the criminal justice system is endless. Cuts to budgets for theagencies that make up the criminal justice system hurt not only the agenciesthemselves, but also the ancillary industries. Most directly, budget cuts canmake criminal justice workers’ jobs tougher by limiting resources or, if the cutsare severe enough, cause them to lose their jobs. A well- funded criminal jus-tice system will keep many people employed, many of whom are registeredvoters. Budgets cuts directly affecting them might result in decisions made atthe ballot box to support— or not support— political candidates. Few politi-cians would ever want to appear to not support the men and women who makethe criminal justice system work!

Now that we have considered some potential monetary benefits of the crim-inal justice system, it is time to consider some of its negative monetary costs.What is the most basic need of any criminal justice system? People who breakthe law and warrant punishment. Without inmates in a correctional facility, allyou have is an empty building. Without people breaking laws, a police officer

xxiv PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxiv

in a car is just a man or woman with nothing to do. The fewer the number ofpeople who break the law, the less need there is for a criminal justice systemand, certainly, the fewer the people whom governments will have to pay toprevent and prosecute crimes. Yet, before we start to argue that more peoplebreaking laws and being punished is economically beneficial, there are a num-ber of things we must consider. First, regardless of whether certain acts arelegal or illegal, there is still a monetary cost attached to them. Shoplifting, forexample, costs companies money that, in turn, causes prices to rise as they at-tempt to replace that lost revenue. Therefore, regardless of whether shoplift-ing is legal or illegal, there is still a cost associated with the act. Second, evenwhen a direct monetary cost of crime does not exist, a social cost does. Wemust remember that people who commit crime are human beings— fathersand mothers, sons and daughters— and may have others who depend on theiremotional and financial support. Although society may be safer by incapaci-tating these people through locking them up in prison or jail, having themlanguishing in jails and prisons makes them a drain on the economy. Not onlydoes the government have to pay money to house these people, but also theyare not adding their labor to the economy (the economic benefits of prisonlabor is an issue we will discuss in a later chapter). Prisoners are neither spend-ing nor making money outside the prison walls or jail cells; they are certainlynot paying taxes. Furthermore, these people are not financially supportingtheir families. If an incarcerated parent is the sole custodial parent, children maybe forced to live with relatives or into the foster care system. Thus, not only havewe punished the offender who is incarcerated, we have also punished his orher family as well. This has a negative effect in the short term, but this lack ofsupport and displacement could contribute to the criminogenic behavior offamily members down the road.

Now that we have briefly discussed how politics and money affect criminaljustice, we must consider one more issue before concluding this chapter. Atwhat point do we find a phenomenon a problem? A similar question shouldbe, after defining a phenomenon as a problem, how do we determine thatsomething in the criminal justice system is not working and requires somechange to the system? For instance, relative to other public places, schools havealways been safe places, even today. However, if we listen to the media, whosepresence and scope of coverage seems to be ever expanding, school shootingsalmost seem to be frequent, and always increasing in frequency. Althoughschool shootings are certainly tragic, these incidents are not common. Simi-larly, the media also depicts numerous other criminal behaviors as either bizarreor increasing. These constant reports, if believed, can make us feel like we are

PREFACE xxv

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxv

not safe anywhere. This is not surprising though. If you look hard enough ina country of over 370 million people within a world of over six billion people,you are likely to find most anything.

Politics and Crime in America

As previously mentioned, our purpose in writing this book is to providereaders a critical analysis of the role played by money and politics in criminaljustice policy. By critical, we mean not accepting the status quo, but insteadquestioning it and trying to uncover its inner workings. We will not, however,advocate any particular political ideology.

Our first goal is to analyze how political issues affect policy. In many in-stances, we will present criminological/ criminal justice research to illustratehow the political framing of an issue is more important than actually consid-ering whether a particular policy choice is sound because it works. In doing so,we endeavored to be as unbiased as possible, although bias is never completelyovercome. Regarding money, we first want to show that money matters in thecriminal justice system. There are not only costs from the commission of crime,but there are also costs associated with preventing and prosecuting crime. Be-yond this, we want people to understand that the criminal justice system is anindustry like any other. Crime is a multi- billion-dollar industry. The criminaljustice system is one of the nation’s largest employers. One common urbanlegend is that some scientist invented a gasoline combustion engine that wouldallow a car to drive 90– 100 miles on a single gallon of gas. Consumers have notbeen able to purchase this engine because an oil company promptly boughtthe patent. If a fuel- efficient engine of this caliber were available, oil compa-nies could potentially lose profits. Now, we are not suggesting that a cure forcrime is out there, or if it were, that it is being suppressed. Yet the criminaljustice system is an industry and many of the decisions that are made or theprocess itself can be more about collecting money or keeping people employedthan actually promoting justice, even if we could develop a satisfactory defi-nition of what exactly justice is.

We have organized the book in the following manner: In Chapter 1, “Gov-ernment & Politics within the United States,” we discuss the nature of gov-ernment and politics in the United States. Of specific concern is the Americansystem of federalism, whereby the federal government and state governmentsshare governance. While criminal justice was primarily a state responsibilityat the founding of the United States, the federal government has had a con-

xxvi PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxvi

tinuing role in, and influence over, criminal justice, which has important im-plications.

In Chapter 2, “The Political Economy of Crime,” we present various crim-inological theories that examine the role of politics and money in the crimi-nal justice system. The purpose here is to ground readers in different theoreticalexplanations that scholars have developed to explain why money and politicsplay a large role in creating law and policy, and effects of money and politicson the day- to-day operation of the criminal justice system.

In Chapter 3, “A Brief History of the United States Criminal Justice Sys-tem,” we provide a condensed history of how criminal justice policy developedin the United States. This evolution is hardly accidental— money and politicshave played a role since the beginning.

In Chapter 4, “The Cost of Crime,” we provide analysis of what the truecost of crime in the United States is. As we describe in the chapter, figuringout the true costs of crime can be a difficult exercise since some costs, such asfederal and state budgets for criminal justice, are easy to obtain, but other costsrelated to crime are not so easily determined.

In Chapter 5, “The Mythology (and Reality) of Crime and Justice in theUnited States,” we describe some of the myths that have developed about crime.What we mean by mythology is the fact that there are many different faulty orinaccurate reasons disseminated to justify various phenomenon within thecriminal justice system.

In Chapter 6, “The Politicization of Crime and Justice in the United States,”we describe different types of interest groups in the United States that are bothinterested in and help to shape crime policy. While we cannot provide any de-finitive answers, we can say that these groups certainly have an effect on thecriminal justice process and the formation of policy.

In Chapter 7, “The Political Economy of Policing,” we identify the differentpublic and private agencies that engage in policing. We also examine how po-lice budgets are developed, the costs of policing for society, and who actuallyprofits from policing. We explore various political issues that affect the prac-tice of policing as well in the chapter.

In Chapter 8, “The Political Economy of Courts,” we identify the differentpublic and private agencies that make up the American criminal court system,including how budgets are developed for courts, what costs society incurs fromcourts, and who actually profits from courts. We also describe various politi-cal issues affecting the administration of courts.

In Chapter 9, “The Political Economy of Corrections,” we turn our atten-tion to the different public and private agencies involved with corrections in

PREFACE xxvii

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxvii

America. Again, we examine how budgets are developed for corrections, whatcosts society incurs from corrections, and who actually profits from correc-tions. Likewise, we also describe the various political issues that affect the prac-tice of corrections.

Chapter 10 concludes the book. In this chapter we summarize what we be-lieve are the most important points we have made in the book, as well as ex-amine what the future may hold for the criminal justice system.

Notes1. Marion, Nancy. 1997. “Symbolic Policies in Clinton’s Crime Control Agenda.” Buf-

falo Criminal Law Review, 1(1): 67– 108.2. Kuziemko, Ilyana. 2006. “Does the Threat of the Death Penalty Affect Plea Bargain-

ing in Murder Cases? Evidence from New York’s 1995 Reinstatement of Capital Punish-ment.” American Law and Economics Review, 8(1): 116– 142.

3. Petersilia, Joan. 1999. “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.” Crime andJustice, 26: 479–529.

4. Currie, Elliott. 2013. Crime and Punishment in America. London: Macmillan.5. Packer, Herbert. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.6. Currie, Elliott. 2013. Crime and Punishment in America. London: Macmillan.7. Little, Nicholas J. 2005. “From No Means No to Only Yes Means Yes: The Rational

Results of an Affirmative Consent Standard in Rape Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review, 58: 1321–1364.

8. Musto, David. 1999. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. 3rd Edition.New York: Oxford University Press.

9. Clear, Todd R., Michael D. Reisig, and George F. Cole. 2012. American Corrections.10th Edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage.

xxviii PREFACE

griffin 00 fmt auto 12/15/15 7:56 AM Page xxviii