Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of .docx

Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of
Criminal Justice Policy
in Table 1.1 “Examples of Federal Criminal Justice Policies”
(Mallicoat, 2014). In this discussion, you will evaluate your
selected criminal justice policy by using one of the models
(i.e., Packer’s, Feeley’s, or Cox and Wade’s) discussed in
Chapter 2 of
The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice
(Marion & Oliver, 2012).
Initial Post:
After selecting one of the criminal justice policies as
identified by Mallicoat, evaluate it based on one of the models
identified in
, and explain your conclusions based on your evaluation of the
current criminal justice system. In your examination of the
policy process, determine if the policy under review is
symbolic or substantive. Finally, determine the major goal and
secondary goal of the policy based on Box 2.1 “Major Goals of
the Criminal Justice System,” in
(Marion & Oliver, 2012). Support your claims with examples
from the required materials and/or other scholarly sources, and
properly cite your references with both in-text and APA
citations at the end of your post. Your initial post is due by
Day 3 (Thursday) and should be at least 400 words in length.
Examples of Federal Criminal Justice Policies

Controlled Substances Act (Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970) – Regulated the
manufacturing, importation, possession, and use of controlled
substances (both legal and illegal).
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 – Regulates
the over-the-counter sale of medicinal products containing
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (products
typically found in cold medications and used to manufacture
methamphetamine).
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 – Enacted mandatory minimum
sentences for drug possession.
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 – Changed the sentencing ratio
between crack cocaine and powder cocaine to 1 to 18
(previously a 1 to 100 ratio).
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Comprehensive Crime Control
Act) – Created sentencing structure for Federal offenses,
established the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and abolished

Federal parole.
Sex Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994 – Requires
convicted sex offenders to notify policy of changes to residency
and employment status.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 –
Organizes sex offenders into a 3-tier system and mandates
timelines for registration based on tier. Creates a national sex
offender registry and provides for the civil commitment for
sexually dangerous persons.
U.S. Patriot Act (2001) – Expanded the power of police
agencies to gather intelligence data on terrorism suspects, and
broadened discretionary powers to detain and deport immigrants
suspected of terrorism.
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 – Enhanced
criminal punishments for Federal fraud laws, including
mortgage fraud, securities fraud, commodities fraud, and fraud
by financial institutions.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 –
Deinstitutionalized status offenders, provided for separation
from youth and adult inmates, and required the states to review
disproportionate minority confinement. Created the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the
National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (NIJJDP). Reauthorized six times (1977, 1980, 1984,
1988, 1992, and 2002) with additional provisions, such as
addressing gender bias, an emphasis on prevention and
treatment, family strengthening, graduate sanctions, risk and
needs assessments, and funding provisions.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 –
Largest crime bill in history. Includes:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (banned the
manufacturing of all fully automatic firearms and selected semi-
automatic firearms, as well as high capacity ammunition
magazines)
Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (increased the number of
federal crimes that are eligible for the death penalty)
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (provided funding for the
prosecution of offenders of crimes of domestic violence,
imposed mandatory restitution, and created opportunities for
civil remedies for victims. Reauthorized in 2000 and 2005)
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program of 2000
(provided funding to implement community policing programs
in jurisdictions nationwide)

MAJOR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Packer’s Models
The first major conceptual model of the criminal justice system
came from Herbert Packer, who was a distinguished professor of
law at Stanford University. In the 1960s, Packer published an
article titled “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” which was
later included in a book titled
The Limits of the Criminal Sanction.
2
In these publications, Packer presented two models of the
criminal justice system: the crime control model and the due
process model. His goal was to present two models that would
“give operational content to a complex of values underlying the
criminal law.”
3
Packer achieved his goal, for these two models have come to
reflect the competing ideologies and policies of the criminal
justice system.
Packer did not necessarily want these two models to become an
oversimplification of the values that underlie the criminal
process. Rather, he wanted to be able to communicate the two
competing systems of values that created an enormous amount
of tension on the development of the criminal process and how
it should best be ordered. He did contend that the polarity of the
two models was not absolute and that there was some common
ground between these competing philosophies. The primary
commonality between these two competing models, Packer

explained, could actually be found in their adherence to the U.S.
Constitution. Both adhered to the principles found in the
Constitution, but each does so in its own unique way. In
addition, both agree that our system is an adversarial system,
pitting the prosecution against the defense. Neither model
disagrees with this basic premise, but how they react to the
adversarial system of justice is quite diverse. Despite the
articulation of this “common ground” between the competing
models, it is the polarity of the two models that is most
renowned and most discussed in terms of Packer’s models.
Therefore, it is to these two competing models we now turn.
CRIME CONTROL
The crime control model articulates that the repression of
criminal conduct is by far the most important function of the
criminal justice system. If the system and, more specifically,
the police fail to keep criminal conduct under tight control, then
it is believed that this will lead to the breakdown of public
order, which will cause the denigration of human freedom. If
people are not free to do as they choose for fear of crime, then
society suffers. Thus, the criminal justice system becomes a
guarantor of human freedom. And to achieve this freedom, the
crime control model argues that the criminal justice system is
charged with arresting suspects, determining guilt, and ensuring
that criminals are properly punished. Therefore, the crime
control model stresses the need for efficiency and speed to
generate a high rate of apprehension while dealing with limited
resources. The goal is to then process these individuals through
the system by moving those who are not guilty out of the
process and moving those who are toward some form of
sanction. Every step in the system, however, is focused on the
successful and speedy prosecution of the offender. To this end,
individual constitutional rights must often be seen as secondary
to the effective prosecution of offenders. This model assumes
that in most cases, people who are brought into the system are

in fact guilty; otherwise, they would not have been brought into
the system in the first place. Thus, a presumption of guilt exists
prior to a suspect becoming a defendant. Therefore, one way to
achieve successful prosecution of these suspects is for lawyers
from both sides to come to an agreement about the case, achieve
a guilty plea, and close the case.
DUE PROCESS
The due process model is generally the polar opposite of the
crime control model. The ideology behind the model is that due
process is “far more deeply impressed on the formal structure of
the law”
4
and that the protection of individual, and thus constitutional
rights, is paramount. Every effort must be made to guarantee
that an individual is not being unfairly labeled and treated as a
criminal, especially before being found guilty. Hence, rather
than assuming a suspect to be guilty, due process assumes the
suspect to be innocent, and guilt must be proven by the criminal
justice system. The purpose of the system, then, is to create a
process of successive stages that is “designed to present
formidable impediments to carrying the accused any further
along in the process.”
5
The reason it does this is to prevent and eliminate any mistakes
being made in the process, at least to the greatest extent
possible. Packer describes the due process model as always
being skeptical of the morality and utility of the criminal
sanction and is wary of the actors in the criminal justice system.
Thus, at each successive stage of the system, roadblocks are
created to ensure that the innocent go free and that the guilty
receive equal protection under the law.
Although Packer did not desire the two models to be seen as
entirely polar opposites of an ideological spectrum, it is this

aspect of the model that is most attractive to the student of
criminal justice. The crime control model resembles an
assembly line, while the due process model resembles an
obstacle course. The crime control model is oriented on being as
efficient as possible, while the due process model desires to be
equitable. The goal of the crime control model is to punish
criminals, while the due process model aims to protect
individual rights. The crime control model achieves its ends
through tough legislation and strong enforcement through the
administrative process. The due process model is more
judicially oriented and is legalistic in nature. And, as both
models are ideologically driven, they tend to be represented by
the two political ideological perspectives as well. The crime
control model is adhered to more often by conservatives, and
the due process model is more often attributed to liberals.
Although there are always exceptions to the rule and these
generalizations might not always hold true, they have a strong
consistency because they are ideologically based.
Feeley’s Models
Taking Packer’s two models a little further was Malcolm M.
Feeley, a professor of criminal justice and the law, in a 1973
article titled “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An
Organizational Approach.”
6
Feeley’s purpose was to create a theoretical framework for
explaining the organization of criminal justice in order that
research could be viewed through these two perspectives.
Feeley articulated that there were two models of organization:
the rational-goal model and the functional-systems model.
RATIONAL GOAL
To create his rational-goal model, Feeley combined two models
that had been previously advanced and merged them into one

model. The rational model argues that an organization is
focused on the means of accomplishing its mission, while the
goals model argues that it is not the means but rather the end
that is important. Feeley advances the argument that in criminal
justice these two concepts, the means and the goals (ends), are
often the same thing, for in criminal justice we seek justice
(means) to obtain justice (goals). The way this is accomplished
is through an adherence to strict rules and procedures within the
bureaucracy, much in the vein of Max Weber.
Weber is the primary scholar who speaks to the rational
organization as being the primary means by which government
achieves its goals. Organizations are characterized by several
major components, consisting of (1) a continuous organization
of official functions bound by rules, (2) a specific sphere of
competence (obligations) in the division of labor to be
performed by a person who is provided with the necessary
means and authority to carry out their tasks, (3) the organization
of offices following the principle of hierarchy, and (4) a set of
technical rules and norms regulating the conduct of the offices.
7
As in the criminal justice system, the system itself is made up
of various officials (police, judges, correctional officers, and so
on) who are bound by formal rules, given specific
responsibilities and authority to carry out their duties, must
follow a chain of command (especially in policing and
corrections), and are guided by policies and procedures in the
performance of their duties. By ensuring that the organization is
highly effective in the performance of their duties (means), they
can ensure that they achieve their ends (goals). Thus,
effectiveness, like in Packer’s crime control model, is the
overriding goal.
FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS
The functional-systems model is a different conception of how

an organization is employed. The common characteristics of this
model are that criminal justice is a “system of action based
primarily upon cooperation, exchange, and adaptation”
8
and that it emphasizes “these considerations over adherence to
formal rules and defined ‘roles’ in searching for and developing
explanations of behavior and discussing organizational
effectiveness.”
9
In fact, this model would acknowledge the viewpoint that the
criminal justice system is not very effective in operating
through its rules and that the actual means for obtaining these
goals is the adherence to the more informal rules of the game,
folkways, personal relationships, and dedicated individuals.
Another way of explaining the differences between the two
models is that the rational-goal model is focused on creating a
rational organization, while the functional-systems model is
focused on creating rational individuals, those people who work
within the criminal justice system, to be better adept at pursuing
goals. Hence, increased discretion is important in the
functional-systems model because it allows those actors in the
system to make decisions in the application of the law rather
than the rules, as would be the case in the rational-goal model.
In Feeley’s two models, we once again see ideology as shaping
the viewpoint of how criminal justice should best be organized.
Packer’s models provided us two viewpoints for understanding
the purpose of criminal justice, while Feeley’s models provide
us a perspective on how best to organize society in order for
these ends to be achieved. Thus, it can be seen that those whose
ideological beliefs lead them to believe that the crime control
model is the proper function of our criminal justice system will
also most likely believe that the rational-goal model is the best
way to achieve this end. Those who believe in the due process
model will most likely articulate that the functional-systems
model is the best way to organize the criminal justice system.

Ideology again shapes our understanding of how criminal justice
should best be ordered.
If the complexity of Feeley’s two models is lost on the reader,
then perhaps it can be made clearer through the more recent
debates over whether criminal justice is a system or a
nonsystem. In the criminal justice system model, the concept
that criminal justice operates as a bona fide system is advanced.
A system is made up of interdependent elements that work
together to perform one or more tasks or goals. This definition
implies first that the component parts or subsystems are
working together to reach one ultimate goal and second that the
system is a sequential, orderly process similar to a factory
assembly line whereby a client must be processed through each
stage before entering into the next. There are component parts
(the police, courts, and corrections agencies) that work together
to reach the goal of reducing or preventing crime. There is also
a sequential process that must be followed as one goes through
the criminal justice system. When individuals enter the system,
they must do so through an arrest: They cannot go straight to
the courts or to the corrections components. Then, after the
arrest stage, a defendant goes through the court component.
They cannot go directly to the corrections area. Only after the
defendant had been processed through the first two components
of the system can he or she enter the corrections component. In
order to get to the next level, an offender must have had contact
with all the preceding ones.
Each of the components must work together to achieve a final
result, meaning that they are interdependent. The work of each
department, therefore, is heavily influenced by the work of
every other department. When one unit changes its policies or
practices, other units will be affected. For example, an increase
in the number of people arrested by the police will affect the
work not only of the judicial subsystem but also of the
probation and correctional subsystems. Each part must make its

own distinctive contribution: Each part must also have at least
minimal contact with at least one other component of the
system.
From this perspective, the criminal justice system is indeed a
“system.” However, many people see the criminal justice system
as a nonsystem in which the component parts do not work
together to achieve a goal. Each of the departments is
independent and has its own tasks or goals. The police have a
goal of bringing people into the system, while the corrections
system wants to get them out. Within the courts, the prosecution
wants to keep the defendant in the system, and the defense
wants to get the case dismissed. Each agency acts as its own
department, with its own goals and needs. In addition, each
component struggles to find its own resources, sometimes
competing for the same resources. This competition, added to
strained relations, poor communications, and a reluctance to
cooperate with each other, can generate antagonism between the
departments. This, in turn, can lead to poor working
relationships and resistance to working with each other and
doing what is in the best interest of the client and society.
Additionally, people working inside the system, as well as those
observing the system, lose their respect for the system and may
be more likely to seek justice in alternative ways.
Cox and Wade’s Criminal Justice System
Another way of thinking about the nonsystem approach has been
advanced by Cox and Wade, who argue that the traditional
flowchart presentation of the criminal justice system is often
misleading and inaccurate.
10
They argue that it fails to indicate the routine pursuit of
different, sometimes incompatible goals by various components;
the effects of feedback based on personal relationships inside
and outside criminal justice; the importance of political

considerations by all those involved; and the widespread use of
discretion.
11
Instead, what they argue is that we really do not have a
criminal justice
system
but rather a criminal justice
network
. They advance this nonsystem concept as “consisting of a web
of constantly changing relationships among individuals, some of
whom are directly involved in criminal justice pursuits, others
who are not” and that “a network may be thought of as a net
with intersecting lines of communication among components
designed to function in a specific manner.”
12
What Cox and Wade argue is that each criminal event can be
unique and that the network will come to bear on the problem in
different ways. A series of simple larcenies from auto may
generate a network of police officers, detectives, and
prosecutors to address the problem, while a kidnapped child
who is taken across state lines will create a network of both
criminal justice actors (local police, state police, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, prosecutors, and so on) and non-
criminal justice actors (victims’ family, the media, the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and so on).
Different actors, agencies, and resources are all brought to bear
on a specific problem, but it is not a standard response, nor is it
always going to be the same responders. These various criminal
justice and non-criminal justice actors employ those aspects of
the network that are necessary to address a specific problem.
This is why they explain that the criminal justice “network” is a
“web of constantly changing relationships among individuals
involved more or less directly in the pursuit of criminal
justice.”
13

These various models of the criminal justice system (or
network) provide varying ideological approaches to criminal
justice and help us understand how we perceive this system. Yet
there is something more to our understanding of criminal justice
that is an extension of our ideological approach to justice that
tells us the purpose of the system itself. While most would
agree that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to
seek justice, the term
justice
can have various meanings to various people. Again, these
variations generally proceed from one’s ideological perspective.
What defines this complexity is most often the discussion of the
goals
of the criminal justice system. It is here that perhaps the
greatest conflict begins to arise in policy formulation, and it is
to this topic we now turn.

Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of .docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of .docx

Ähnlich wie Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of .docx (20)

Mehr von edmondpburgess27164

Mehr von edmondpburgess27164 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Select a policy from the list of examples found in Chapter 1 of .docx