How crime and criminal justice have changed over time - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Since 1950 many aspects of crime and criminal justice have changed. Choose two (2) of these aspects and discuss how they changed and why they changed. Changes can include events and/or attitudes.
You are to discuss trends, patterns of events or attitudes over time: i.e. if crime is steadily ...

Description

HISTORY 371: ESSAY NO. 3. THE QUESTION Since 1950 many aspects of crime and criminal justice have changed. Choose two (2) of these aspects and discuss how they changed and why they changed. Changes can include events and/or attitudes. You are to discuss trends, patterns of events or attitudes over time: i.e. if crime is steadily (or unevenly) rising, that is a trend. If it is steadily (or unevenly) falling, that is a trend. If there is no clear pattern over several years, there seems to be no trend unless it goes in cycles.

Since the 1950s, crime and the criminal justice system has changed dramatically with the help of law enforcement and the Supreme Court. During the post-war era, America saw a spike in crime that escalated social unrest. At a time of fear and panic, the police and the Supreme Court developed different methods on how they were to handle this increasing crime trend and the public became vocal within the criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court was liberalizing, the police’s tactics were becoming tougher and stricter. Due to the professionalization of the police force and the liberalization of the Supreme Court, the criminal justice system and the views of crime altered to take an active approach while promoting educational reforms. The police force became a professionalized force that was nationally recognized. In the 1950s, police administrators raised their standards for officers while dissociating themselves from political machines and the systemic corruption that came with it. Influenced by Chief William Parker and O.W. Wilson, the reputation of the police grew. Police forces were encouraged to pursue additional academic training which allowed the recruits to understand the tactics on an intellectual level and help them understand crime in general. Also, the police incorporated harder exams and requirements for a person to pass in order to be admitted into the

police force. Along with harder admission exams, the police academy introduced proper training and development for new recruits and taught strategies which contributed to their increase in professionalism. Furthermore, law enforcement became standardized which established protocols, techniques, and a conduct that would be shared among all police forces. With the increase in patrolling and new technology such as cars, sirens and an emergency telephone line, 911, the police developed a unitary system that followed one set of rules. These standards were useful because it created a publicly known “Code of Ethics” for law enforcement to follow providing the standards for ideal conduct for police forces. LAPD was the first prime example who incorporated professionalism into their code of ethics and standards. A combination of President JFK’s assassination in 1963 and the Civil Rights Movement in 1964 increased the public fears on crime and put law enforcement’s effectiveness into questioning. The police received pressure from large-scale protests and anti-war demonstrators during the Civil Rights era due to racial segregation and the US deployment into Vietnam. Because it was a time where people were voicing their opinions, the middle class became interested in what the police were doing and by the end of 1964, the Supreme Court placed limitations on police work that challenged their customs and practices including search and seizures, brutality and in-custody investigations. Furthermore, with the law enforcement’s “Code of Ethics” that was known to the public, it was very hard for the police to uphold those standards because they were constantly being watch and ridiculed. The whole Civil Rights Movement gave the middle class the confidence to challenge the police to reform and fight for their constitutional rights. In the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riot, the police showed off their militant tactics and started to tear gas and use physical force against a crowd who were unarmed. This was a clear example of the police taking things too far and abused their powers. These riots led

police to distance themselves from the minority communities because the community relations with the police suffered a great deal. However, new strategies and technology were used to maintain the security of its citizens while keeping distance from them. However by the 1970s, these riots led to acts of reform and neighborhood policing was implemented, minimizing and eliminating negative perceptions of police. One contributing leader was Lee Brown who “emphasized foot patrol, town meetings, crime prevention, and [tried] to assess specific neighborhood needs” (Docs 11/27). The police force implemented new strategies and scientific techniques to better identify a culprit and have developed better programs that train officers on and off the field, as well as after a cop graduates the academy. The Supreme Court has changed crime and the criminal justice system by liberalizing the court system and becoming active in protecting the lives of its citizens. Since the 1950s, the country faced a sharp increase in violent street crimes, armed robberies, drug related murders, and rapes. With the “law and order” campaign which pushed for stricter penalties and a harsher criminal justice system, the Supreme Court set new standards for criminal procedure by instituting new statutes that would alter the way crime interrogations were conducted by the police, it guaranteed prisoner, suspect and defender’s rights and ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, but made restrictions that applied to capital punishment. The Court played a crucial role in promoting equality and political liberalism by enforcing the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, where the Court erased the distinctions that had supported a racially segregated society. In regards to liberalizing suspect’s rights, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Exclusionary Rule, which stated that the police cannot search your property unless they have a search warrant that specifies what the search is for; otherwise, the evidence will be found inadmissible in court. Also, in 1966, the Supreme

Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that before questioning a suspect, the suspect must be aware of his rights to an attorney and his “Miranda rights” which informs the accused of their Constitutional rights. Both Mapp and the Miranda case established the principle of police accountability and set stricter standards for searches. In addition, the Supreme Court enforced rules that outlined the defendant’s rights and the procedures of the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court expanded the public defender system and legal aid for those who could not afford an attorney. For example, in 1963, in the case of Gideon v. Wainright, the Supreme Court held that a person has the right to a court-appointed attorney at trial and has the right to an attorney in the juvenile courts which was ruled in the In re Gault decision in 1967. Regarding the rights of the prisoner, it typically was perceived that prisoners were slaves to the states and that they had no rights because they don’t deserve them. However, in Cooper v. Pate in 1964, the Supreme Court set the principle that prisoners have Constitutional rights which limited the powers of prison wards and guards. Furthermore, in Holt v. Sarver in 1970, it was made clear that judicial supervision of prison practices must be implemented which allows outside agencies to stand up for the rights of prisoners. Also, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the 60s, but the Supreme Court established limitations on capital punishment that allowed for a jury to decide whether the death penalty fits the crime and if it did, how it should be carried out. The 1970s saw the beginning of the mandatory sentencing law which convicted those of selling illegal drugs to serve a minimum prison sentence. In California, the Court established the Three-Strike law which gave a life sentence to those who had committed a crime more than twice. This increased the prison population and was later revoked by most of the states. With the combination of the growing death row populations and the declining number of executions, the

Supreme Court focused its attention on the constitutionality of the death penalty. The assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. played a significant role in the fear of crime and challenge over the death penalty; the NAACP was a strong advocator for challenging its constitutionality because there was a racial disparity and it was clear that it discrimination had a role in it especially in Southern states. The Court set forth stricter requirements on death penalty statutes at both the federal and state level which gave discretion to the Supreme Court to decide whether a person should be sent a person to death. In the 1990s, the Court established victim’s rights where the victim impact statements are allowed in the penalty phase of the trial. Up until the early 2000s, it was unconstitutional for the Judge to decide the facts in a death penalty case; a jury must be responsible for the decision. In 2017, the Supreme Court has dropped the execution rate from its highest of 98 in 1998 to 23 in 2017. The police force and the Supreme Court have brought significant changes to the criminal justice system and to crime itself. The professionalization of the police force allowed for the police to enter crime scenes better prepared, equipped and organized. With better training, educational programs, technologies, investigative techniques, and funding, the police have been able to become more active and vigilant to danger. Because World War II ended and the country was left economically unstable and as a result the crime increased, the police force was under a great deal of pressure to maintain order of society. However, they found it hard to maintain their Code of Ethics when Civil Rights activists were watching their every move. On the other hand, the liberalization of the Supreme Court allowed for the regulation of the police and it established a new standard for the criminal procedure. During the period of the “law and order” campaign, the Supreme Court was responsible for cracking down on laws and making the sentencing and criminal justice system stricter. The Supreme Court enabled suspects, defendants and prisoners to

have rights during the trial proceedings as well as after. The Supreme Court set limits for states and the police which gave the Court power and control. Since the 1950s, both the police and the Supreme Court contributed to new laws, procedures, conduct and rights still guaranteed today....