Skip to Main Content
Phillips Library Banner

U.S. Domestic Policy Research

How to research policy and legislation applying to those in the United States of America

Criminal Justice Policy Resources

Books

Journals

                                                                                      

Criminal Justice Policy

Everyone is affected by the criminal justice system through public policy. Policy represents social control and ensures members of society are compliant and conform to the laws. Policies include issues related: to juvenile justice, drug legislation, intimate partner violence, prison overcrowding, school safety, new federal immigration laws, terrorism, and national security.

Modern-day crime policies can be traced to changes in crime and delinquency in the 1960s. That decade saw major increases in the crime rate along with widespread social unrest as a result of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. The work of the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice highlighted the crime problem, and the criminal justice system’s failure to address the problem. The commission called for new approaches, programs, policies, funding models, and research on the cause of crime. In addressing the causes of crime (theory), and using appropriate data collection (research), effective policies and programs could be proposed.

Theory-Policy-Research

When discussing crime policies, it is important to understand the difference between “crime prevention” and “crime control.” Policies and programs designed to reduce crime are crime prevention techniques. Specifically, crime prevention “entails any action designed to reduce the actual level of crime and/or the perceived fear of crime.” [1] On the other hand, crime control alludes to the maintenance of the crime level.  Policies, such as the three strikes law or Measure 11, seek to prevent future crime by incapacitating offenders through incarceration. Other policies like sex offender registration acknowledge that sex offenders exist and registering them will control the level of deviation, sometimes preventing-or perceiving to prevent future offenses.

Public policies and laws are created at different levels of government, with micro-level policies enacted on the local level and macro level applied at the federal or state level. For example, at the local level, some towns and cities might create specific ordinances tailored to their unique needs, such as banning cigarette smoking in the downtown area. At the federal level, policies are created that apply to the federal criminal justice system and can apply to states as well. However, federal laws can differ from state laws, such as marijuana legalization. Individual organizations can also make policies that address their individual agency needs, such as requirements for local police officers. Therefore, depending on who creates the policies, they can be far-reaching or extremely localized. [2]

We can look at criminal justice policy through three perspectives: theoretical, political, and practical. The theoretical perspective enables us to better understand the causes and consequences of crime and what can be done insofar as crime control or prevention. By researching the theory behind the crime, we can better implement effective policies.  From a political perspective, studying policy confirms the need for evidence-based practices and decisions based on research rather than fear and haphazard agenda setting. And finally, the policy is practical. It utilizes theory, research, evidence-based practices to solve practical problems in the world around us.

 

The Stages of Policy Development

The stages of policy development can generally be categorized into 5 general stages. (1) identifying the issue to be addressed by the proposed policy, (2) placement on the agenda, (3) formulation of the policy, (4) implementation of the policy, and (5) evaluation of the policy. 

Identifying the Problem and Agenda Setting

Identifying the problem involves addressing what is happening and why it is an issue. In criminal justice, this might look at the increase of opioid use and overdoses or acts of youth violence. Once the issue is identified, there can be a serious debate about the plans of the policy. Once it is decided what the policy will look like, it is placed on the agenda. This is perhaps the most politicized part of the process as it involves many different stakeholders. It involves identifying the legislative, regulatory, judicial, or other institutions responsible for policy adoption and formulation.

Formulation and Adoption

The next stage involved adopting the policy. Depending on the nature of the policy, this could involve a new law or an executive order.

Implementation of the Policy

Implementation is about moving forward, taking action, and spending money. It involves hiring new staff or additional police officers. This is where policies often stall because of the lack of funding. For example, a popular program in 1990, Weed and Seed, involved “weeding” out criminals (targeting arrest efforts) and “seeding” new programs (instituting after-school programs, drug treatment facilities, etc.). The weeding portion of the program was a great success, but the program ultimately failed because of a lack of funding to adequately seed new community programming. Funding is a major roadblock for proper implementation.

Evaluation

The evaluation examines the efficacy of the policy. There are three different types of evaluation: Impact, Process, and Cost-benefit analysis. Impact (outcome) evaluations focus on what changes after the introduction of the crime policy. [1] Changes in police patrol practices aimed at reducing the level of residential burglaries in an area are evaluated in terms of subsequent burglaries. The difficulty with impact evaluations is that changes in the crime rate are rarely, if ever, due to a single intervening variable. For example, after the implementation of curfew laws for juvenile offenders, juvenile crime decreased. Can we say that was because of curfew laws? The entire crime rate for America decreased at the same time. Attributing a single outcome based on a solitary intervention is problematic.

Process evaluations consider the implementation of a policy or program and involve determining the procedure used to implement the policy. These are detailed, descriptive accounts of the implementation of the policy including the goals of the program, who is involved, the level of training, the number of clients served, and changes to the program over time. [2] Unfortunately, process evaluations do not address the actual impact policy has on the crime problem, just what was done about a specific issue or who was involved. While this is indeed a limitation, it is essential to know the inner workings of a program or policy if it is to be replicated.

Cost-benefit evaluations, or analysis, seeks to determine if the costs of a policy are justified by the benefits accrued. A ubiquitous example of this would be an evaluation of the popular anti-drug D.A.R.E. program of the 1980s and 1990s. The D.A.R.E. program was a school-based prevention program aimed at preventing drug use among elementary school-aged children. Rigorous evaluations of the program show that it was ineffective and sometimes actually increased drug use in some youth. The cost of this program was roughly $1.3 billion dollars a year (about $173 to $268 per student per year) to implement nationwide (once all related expenses, such as police officer training and services, materials and supplies, school resources, etc., were factored in). [3] Using a cost-benefit analysis, is that a good use of money to support an ineffective program?

Policy formation is often a knee-jerk reaction to the current problem. Many policies are the result of grassroots efforts to change something in their communities. In the end, what is law is not always effective and what is effective is not always law.

For example, let us pretend the issue is youth crime in our city. Kids are roaming the streets like packs of wild dogs, jeering at the elderly, and generally making us feel unsafe. A proposed policy might be to hold parents accountable for their child’s misbehavior. If parents are responsible, then they will take better care of their kids, right? Take, Little Skippy. He smokes, curses, and recently stole his neighbor’s car. Little Skippy was arrested after crashing into the drive-thru sign at the local Taco Bell, based on parental responsibility law, his mom and dad are to blame for his reckless driving fiasco. 

 

Re-Evaluating Policy

Policies represent the current political climate and it is necessary to revisit and change them as necessary. For example, in 1787, only white men over 21 could vote, and the President could serve for as long as he was elected this has subsequently changed. In the criminal justice world, many crimes are socially constructed and mala prohibita rather than mala in se, so creating laws and policies around them is as short-lived and fleeting as the new most popular meme.

For example, the Eighteenth Amendment states (1917):
“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

At the time, it was believed alcohol was the cause of crime, poverty, and social ills. Policy makers believed that the prohibition of alcohol (1920-33), or the “noble experiment” as it was called, would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. [1] The experiment was an absolute failure. Crime actually increased and became organized, alcohol became more dangerous to drink because of the lack of regulations on bootlegged and black market production, corruption of public officials was rampant, and courts and prisons were stretched to capacity.

Prohibition was eventually repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. There are many more laws and policies enacted every year in the United States that represent a current political climate or agenda. It is necessary, therefore, to reevaluate these policies, apply research and the scientific method to assess their efficacy, and change, modify, or repeal the laws as society changes. The United States Constitution is a living document, as are laws and policies.

 

This is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. This work is a derivative SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System” by Burke, Carter, Fedorek, Morey, Rutz-Burri, Sanchez is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Importance of Evidence Based Practices

In the 1970s, Martin Robinson issued his infamous claim that “nothing works” in rehabilitating offenders. [1] In the 1980s, numerous research studies were published that contradicted this claim and proposed alternative approaches to combating crime and effective interventions. Since then, countless researchers, agencies, and even Congress have adopted the need to create comprehensive evaluations of effective programs.

Evidence-based practices mean utilizing research in pursuit of identifying programs, policy initiatives, or practices that work. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) “considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through high-quality outcome evaluations,” and notes that “causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change.” [2] National research clearinghouses are great resources for systematic literature reviews of effective public programs across a plethora of areas, such as:

With evidence-based practices comes evidence-based policymaking.  Evidence-based policy-making identifies what works, enables policymakers to use evidence in deciding budgets and policy, identifies where there are gaps or information is lacking, monitors and measures key outcomes, and continuously uses the information to improve performance and objectives. [3] The goal is to create a policy that can be enforced consistently and can withstand political change.

Steps in Evidence-Based Policy Making

 

This is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. This work is a derivative SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System” by Burke, Carter, Fedorek, Morey, Rutz-Burri, Sanchez is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The Myth of Moral Panics

Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is/are claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the first place. [1]

Moral panics arise when distorted mass media campaigns create fear and reinforce previously held or stereotyped beliefs, frequently centered around ethnicity, religion, or social class. Often, moral panics occur swiftly, focusing attention on the behavior and then fluctuating concern over time. The most problematic aspect of the moral panic is that the hysteria often results in a need to “do something” about the issue and most commonly “results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify the agendas of those in positions of power and authority.” Moral panics focus attention on what we should fear and who we should blame for that fear. Instigators of moral panics frequently misinterpret data for their own agenda. Cohen (1972)  said at least five sets of social actors are involved in a moral panic. These include 1) folk devils, 2) rule or law enforcers, 3) the media, 4) politicians, and 5) the public. [2]

First, folk devils are the people who are blamed for being allegedly responsible for the threat to society. Folk devils are completely negative and have no redeeming qualities. This is how juvenile offenders, or “super-predators” as they were referred to in the 1990s. The narrative went like this:

We’re talking about kids who have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future….And make no mistake. While the trouble will be greatest in black inner-city neighborhoods, other places are also certain to have burgeoning youth-crime problems that will spill over into upscale central-city districts, inner-ring suburbs, and even the rural heartland…They kill or maim on impulse, without any intelligible motive…The buzz of impulsive violence, the vacant stares and smiles, and the remorseless eyes…they quite literally have no concept of the future….they place zero value on the lives of their victims, whom they reflexively dehumanize…capable of committing the most heinous acts of physical violence for the most trivial reasons…for as long as their youthful energies hold out, they will do what comes “naturally”: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high. [3] Folk devils are the embodiment of evil and center stage of the moral panic drama. They have no redeeming qualities so it is easy for the population to fear and hate them.

Second, the police or other law enforcement officials (prosecutors or even the military) are essential for propagating the moral panic since they are responsible for upholding and enforcing codes of conduct and expectations of the citizens. They are expected to protect society from the folk devils by detecting, apprehending, and punishing their evil ways. Furthermore, the moral panic can offer law enforcement legitimacy as moral crusaders and protectors. Law enforcement has a purpose to defend society and rid it of the folk devils which threaten their safety and well being.

Third, the media are particularly powerful in creating and advancing the moral panic. Generally, news media coverage of folk devils is often skewed and exaggerated. The media coverage often displays the folk devils as much more threatening to society than they really are. Journalists feed public anxiety and fear, which heightens the moral panic. Media influences policy in two ways:

(1) they select the “important” issues (agenda setting),

(2) they problematize policy by attaching meaning to it. In this way, the frame and construct the narratives.

Agenda setting is the way the media draw the public’s eye to a specific topic. Framing refers to a type of agenda setting in a prepackaged way and narratives are about the story that is told. Said another way, framing focuses on the broad categories, segments, or angles through which a story can be told. Frames include factual and interpretive claims that allow people to organize events and experiences into groups. Narrative construction involves decisions by storytellers that determine the specific characters, plot, causal implications, and policy solutions presented. Narratives are pictures that the public already accepts and embraces (See Table 1 for examples of criminal justice frames and narratives). Journalists and reporters are taught to tell stories through first-hand accounts and experiences people have because audiences care about these human experiences and their stories more than they care about abstract societal issues. In theory, then, journalists and reporters are the gatekeepers to the information and they choose how they organize and present ideas to the public. This helps us create social meaning from events or actions (See Table 2 for framing techniques). [4]

Table 1: Criminal Justice Frames and Examples of Narratives

Frame Cause Policy
Faulty system Crime stems from criminal justice leniency and inefficiency. The criminal justice system needs to get tough on crime
Blocked opportunities Crime stems from poverty and inequality The government must address the “root causes” of crime by creating jobs and reducing poverty.
Social breakdown Crime stems from family and community breakdown Citizens should band together to recreate traditional communities.
Racist system The criminal justice system operates in a racist fashion African Americans should band together to demand justice
Violent media Crime stems from violence in the mass media The government should regulate violent imagery in the media
Narrative Costume Characteristic
The PI Cheap suit and car Loner, cynical, shrewd, shady but dogged
The rogue cop Plainclothes, disguise, often has special high tech equipment Maverick, smart, irreverent, violent but effective
The sadistic guard Unkempt uniform Low intelligence, violent, racist, sexist, perverted, and enjoys cruelty, inflicting pain, and humiliation
The corrupt lawyer Expensive suite and office Smart, greedy, manipulative, dishonest, smooth talker and liar, able to twist words, logic, and morality
The greedy businessman Very expensive office and home, trophy wife Very smart, decisive, and a polished, unquenchable sometimes psychotic need for power and wealth

[Footnote]Surette, R. (2011). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images, realities, and policies (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. [/footnote]

Table 2: Framing Techniques

Framing techniques per Fairhurst and Sarr (1996):
  • Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to something else.
  • Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable way.
  • Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the mundane, closely tied to artifacts.
  • Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it more memorable and relate-able.
  • Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a visual/cultural phenomenon that holds more meaning than the object itself.
  • Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.
  • Spin: to present a concept in such a way as to convey a value judgment (positive or negative) that might not be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias by definition. (Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. 1996. The art of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)

Fourth, politicians are also protagonists in a moral panic. They spin the public opinion and present themselves as the safeguards of the moral high ground. They are similar to law enforcement in this drama and they have an obligation to protect society from folk devils.

The fifth and final category of moral panic is the public. The public is the most important actor on the stage. Public anxiety and fear over the folk devils is the central theme of moral panics. A moral panic only exists because the public cries out for policymakers and law enforcement to “do something” and save them from the alleged threat that has been created.

 

This is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. This work is a derivative SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System” by Burke, Carter, Fedorek, Morey, Rutz-Burri, Sanchez is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0