Crime Policy Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example POSTNAME is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Government response to crime begins first with defining what constitutes criminal behavior. In totalitarian regimes, crime is often defined as any behavior that threatens the authority of the state. In liberal democracies, crime often mirrors the public’s judgment of right and wrong behavior. Although these judgments may vary from state to state, most democratic nations condemn behavior that threatens the life, liberty, and property of others.

Limitations On Crime Prevention Policies

Social scientists and philosophers actively debate what causes people to commit crime. Some experts adhere to a medical model of crime, which posits that crime is a symptom of individual or societal dysfunction. Other experts assert that crime is a choice made by rational actors who act as free moral agents. Over time, lawmakers have incorporated both perspectives in their attempts to prevent crime: Officials will commit public funds to improve living conditions, educational opportunities, and vocational resources for their citizens while at the same time enacting tough sentencing laws that communicate the consequences of bad behavior.

Although public officials are concerned about the problem of crime, they are limited in their ability to stop it since many of the influences that impact criminal behavior are beyond government control. For example, research has shown that individuals with absent or dysfunctional families, negative peer relationships, and inadequate moral or religious training are more likely to commit crime; yet policy makers are often precluded from intervening in these private spheres. Similarly, studies have found that individuals with poor self-control are at higher risk for engaging in criminal behavior, but government policies can do little to change individual character traits. Nonetheless, when crime rates rise, increased public concern puts pressure on lawmakers to take immediate action to reduce crime. Accordingly, policy makers enact policies that alter the role of police, adjust the prosecutorial response, or amend the punishment scheme.

Altering The Role Of Police

In most jurisdictions, local police agencies are charged with enforcing criminal statutes and maintaining social order. In the United States, police agencies have been transformed from loosely structured partisan organizations to professionalized bureaucratic agencies. Urban unrest in the 1960s and 1970s prompted a renewed interest in creating a community service role for police officers. Instead of patrolling neighborhoods in police cars—a practice that created distance between officers and citizens—offers were reassigned to foot patrol to encourage a stronger affinity between police and community residents. This also allowed officers to implement the zero tolerance theory of policing, which required officers to address minor disturbances in order to keep more serious crime at bay.

On occasion, lawmakers have enacted policies that change the way police officers do their jobs. When civil rights advocates complained that officers were indifferent to domestic violence and other crimes against women, policy makers curtailed traditional police discretion by enacting mandatory arrest policies and requiring certain procedural protections for victims of sexual violence. Similarly, police organizations with a history of racial prejudice have been the subject of targeted reforms, particularly with regard to the hiring, training, and evaluation of police officers. In some jurisdictions, civilian oversight of police agencies remains a source of contention as police officers view such policies as being unnecessarily restrictive or overly meddlesome.

Since the start of the modern war on terror, counterterrorism efforts have increasingly involved local police agencies. Many policy makers believe that police agencies are better suited than the military for counterterrorist operations because officers are regularly trained to detect, apprehend, and interrogate criminal suspects without compromising individual civil liberties or incurring civilian casualties. They are also in a better position to work with community leaders and other local agencies to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Other lawmakers, however, believe that counterterrorism efforts should be coordinated by national agencies because police agencies are ill-suited to handle the national security implications of terrorist related threats. They also lack the ability to direct personnel and resources outside of their local jurisdictions.

Adjusting The Prosecutorial Response

In liberal democracies, state attorneys are responsible for initiating judicial proceedings against criminal suspects. They weigh evidence collected from the police and file criminal charges with the court. In many instances, prosecutors have independent authority to decide whether to initiate proceedings against the suspect; in other jurisdictions, policy makers compel prosecutors to press charges in certain types of cases.

In recent years, governments have vacillated in their prosecutorial response to terrorism. Some governments have allowed terrorist suspects to have full due process rights, while others have treated terrorists as enemies of the state. Before the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, U.S. officials routinely prosecuted individual terrorists as criminal suspects in civilian courts; however, after the 2001 attacks, the George W. Bush administration began to treat some terrorist suspects as unlawful enemy combatants. Instead of facing criminal charges in regular court proceedings, these suspects were prosecuted and tried in military tribunals. Since the 2008 election of Barack Obama, however, federal Department of Justice officials have been authorized to selectively prosecute high-profile terrorism cases in civilian proceedings.

Amending The Punishment Scheme

In most liberal democracies today, convicted criminals are punished with loss of liberty or property, and occasionally, with loss of life. Although the death penalty remains a punishment option in some nations, its use has decreased dramatically in the last several decades. In most nations, government officials are more likely to punish criminals with alternative sanctions, such as monetary fines and restitution, compelled participation in rehabilitation programs and community service, and fixed terms of imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, judges have full discretion over criminal sentencing; elsewhere, lawmakers are responsible for determining the terms of punishment.

Since the early twentieth century, sentencing policies have reflected a variety of philosophical beliefs. Some lawmakers assert that offenders can be rehabilitated through compelled participation in educational and behavioral modification programs. Others contend that bad behavior can be deterred by more punitive sentences or prevented altogether by sentences that incapacitate incorrigible offenders. Still others insist that the government only impose sentences that are justly deserved. Since each position has its practical advantages and disadvantages, democratic lawmakers have struggled to find a policy mixture that can curb crime while minimizing costs and maximizing liberty. Accordingly, when crime rates fluctuate, officials will often try to amend the sentencing scheme first before examining other parts of the system.

Bibliography:

Martin, Gus. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2010.
Scheingold, Stuart. The Politics of Law and Order: Street Crime and Public Policy. New York: Longman, 1984.
Tonry, Michael H. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Wilson, James Q. Thinking about Crime, rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 1983.