Critical Issues in Criminal Justice: Laws and Innovations

This report examines critical issues within the US criminal justice system, focusing on the legislative changes that have significantly impacted incarceration rates. It delves into specific laws, including minimum mandatory sentences, truth-in-sentencing laws, three-strikes laws, sentencing guidelines, and sentencing enhancements. The report analyzes how these changes have influenced the size and composition of the prison population, exploring the effectiveness and potential drawbacks of truth-in-sentencing and three-strikes laws, with particular attention to their impact on the safety of police and correctional officers. The analysis is supported by examples and research, providing a comprehensive overview of the evolution of sentencing policies and their consequences within the criminal justice system. The report concludes by considering recent initiatives aimed at reforming sentencing and reducing incarceration levels.

Running head: CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1
Critical Issues in Criminal Justice
Student’s Name
Date

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2
Introduction
United States is leading in imprisonment with approximately 2.2 million people in jails
and prisons. The country is responsible for imprisoning more people per capita as compared to
other nations with two thirds of this population waiting for trial.4.6 million of its population are
being monitored in community probation and parole. These incarceration rates have been so due
to sentencing laws and policies that have mostly affected African American and Latinos (Pratt,
2018).
This paper is aimed at explaining how this situation of rise in incarceration levels came
about with a focus on legislative changes which affected the length of sentences handed down by
judges in judicial system.
Legislative changes and Sentences
Minimum mandatory requirements
This requirement means that a person convicted of a particular crime especially serious
and violent crimes must be imprisoned for a minimum term as dictated by legislature and not the
judicial system. Which means that the judges have little say in the judgement rather than
enforcing the requirement. An example is that when a person is found in possession of cocaine
they serve at least five years in prison.
These requirements gained popularity in 1956 when the Narcotic Control Act needed a
minimum sentence for offenders who were involved in importing and distributing drugs. Around
1990s more than 60 offenses had minimal mandatory sentences. These requirements majorly
affected drug offenders especially blacks who were found in possession of cocaine (Palamar et
al., 2015). This is due to an establishment by Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1984.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 3
These requirements which were mostly in drug crimes, were applied based on weight,
quantity and type of drug amongst other issues, the sentences included five years’ imprisonment
and above depending on the nature of crime to life imprisonment without parole. An example of
life imprisonment without parole could be if one is found in possession of 50 grams of
methamphetamine with previous record of selling marijuana.
Even though the U.S Sentencing Commission in 1984 established sentencing guidelines
as means of reducing sentencing disparities, it ended up reducing judicial discretion and
increasing prison years to drug offenders.
Three Strikes Law
This law normally referred to as ‘three strike and you’re out’ was approved by Congress
following President Bill Clintons speech and proposal in which he said, ‘those who are found
commit crimes should be punished while those who commit repeated crimes for the third time
they should be put away and put away for good (Monahan & Skeem, 2016).’ It was later
incorporated into Violent and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which dictated life imprisonment
for committing serious crime if the offender had already committed two crimes indicated in
federal and state courts and one of the two crimes was also categorized as serious crime. This
law was however being challenged in Lockyer v. Andrade case and in the 2012 amendments
amongst other legislative changes.
This law is not good inventions because, in case a criminal has committed an offense for
the third time, they may try to prevent report and prosecution by killing witnesses, allies and
even police officers who apprehend them (Crifasi, Pollack & Webster, 2016). This will result to
death of several police officers and more murder cases that cannot be directly linked to the killer.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 4
An investigation indicated that homicide rates increased in areas where three strikes law was
practiced.
Other negative impact will include, ineffectiveness of the law in dealing with violent
crimes and an increase in violence crimes, cost of prosecution and imposition of harsh
punishment to offenders who do not deserve such punishment. This law will not deal with
violent crime considering that violent crimes are not premeditated, therefore police will have
more arrests.
Truth-in-Sentencing Laws
This laws were enacted in order to reduce the possibility of offenders being released early
from incarceration. It is aimed at ensuring that they serve the prison sentence according to the
judge’s dictation for a good amount of time before being eligible for release mostly 85% of their
sentence. In enforcing this United States Congress provided incentive grants to states in
expanding correctional centers and facilities through Violent Offender Incarceration (VOI) and
Truth-In-Sentencing programs (Breyer, 2017).
This requirement as per Crime Act of 1994 saw several criminals serve sentences in
prison some of who were to be released as the facilities continued to increase from state funds
(Slobogin, 2017). This invention is not effective due to the fact that half of the tax spent on
prisons ends up going to building equipment and amenities rather than for security and police
officers. Security officers therefore are not beneficiaries of the fund sent to prisons as they are
supposed to due to this law.
Sentencing enhancements
Sentencing enhancements entail increase in the number of sentencing years as established
by Congress to the judicial system for certain subset of felony crime. Originally enhancements

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 5
were in crimes related to terrorism such as committing such a crime or supporting a person
committing terrorism activities. It entails addition of years in prison to the penalty that will be
ruled by the judge.
This sentencing enhancement were later expanded to incorporate domestic serious crimes
such as gang members convicted of crimes, murder, kidnapping, rape and use of firearms
amongst other crimes depending on the states (Kim, Cano, Kim & Spohn, 2016).
Sentencing guidelines
This are non-binding laws that dictate a common or uniform way of handling offenders in
the united states. It became effective in 1987 whereby it provided concise and precise calibration
of sentences based on several fa tors that were already taken into consideration. The factors
included, the number of times the offense is committed, offender’s guilt and harm caused by the
offender as in Payne v. Tennessee (Rowland, 2017).
These guidelines restricted the ability of a judge to make an informed decision based on
other relevant factors since the judge had to reference the guidelines as a result several people
went to prison based on this guideline. This continued until United States V. Booker (2005) case
which related to violation of sixth amendment, the judges could make independent judgments
though giving reason why they didn’t use the guideline as seen in Rita v. United States (2007)
Conclusion
In the past years several initiatives have been undertaken in dealing with these sentencing
policies in order to reduce concertation rates. These initiatives have had a big impact on the
police, offenders and United States government.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 6
They include introduction Sentencing Reforms and Corrections Act of 2015 (SRCA)
which was aimed at reducing prisoner sentences and granting judges more discretion. Several
states have made initiatives to adjust minimum sentences, drug and felony threshold while
providing education and job training services and skills to inmates.
Bobby Scott introduction of Safe Justice Act aimed at reducing the amount of money
used in prison systems as way of dealing with truth in sentencing laws. First Step Act aimed at
reducing recidivism rates amongst other reforms has also helped in dealing with harsh sentencing
policies. (Harvell et al., 2016).

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 7
Reference
Breyer, S. G. (2017). The Original US Sentencing Guidelines and Suggestions for a Fairer
Future. Hofstra L. Rev., 46, 799.
Crifasi, C. K., Pollack, K. M., & Webster, D. W. (2016). Effects of state-level policy changes on
homicide and nonfatal shootings of law enforcement officers. Injury prevention, 22(4),
274-278.
Harvell, S., Welsh-Loveman, J., Love, H., & La Vigne, N. G. (2016). Reforming sentencing and
corrections policy: The experience of justice reinvestment initiative states. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
Kim, B., Cano, M. V., Kim, K., & Spohn, C. (2016). The impact of United States v. Booker and
Gall/Kimbrough v. United States on sentence severity: Assessing social context and
judicial discretion. Crime & Delinquency, 62(8), 1072-1094.
Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual review of
clinical psychology, 12, 489-513.
Palamar, J. J., Davies, S., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman, M. (2015). Powder
cocaine and crack use in the United States: An examination of risk for arrest and
socioeconomic disparities in use. Drug and alcohol dependence, 149, 108-116.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 8
Pratt, T. C. (2018). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of
misinformation in the United States. Sage Publications.
Rowland, M. G. (2017). Introduction to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Anniversary
Special Section. Federal Probation, 81(2), 3.
Slobogin, C. (2017). Principles of Risk Assessment: Sentencing and Policing. Ohio St. J. Crim.
L., 15, 583.