Deterrence in Criminal Justice Our criminal justice policies are based on deterrence meaning certain, swift, and severe enough punishment will prevent criminals from committing illegal acts. Moreover, many assume that crime happens more often when deterrence is lax and crime diminishes when stricter policies are put in place. But do the criminal justice policies in practice follow this logic? When examining severity of punishment, approximately twelve million serious crimes are reported to the police annually, but only one million criminals are arrested for their crimes. Convicted felons are three times more likely to receive probation than a prison sentence. The bail system in the United States allows criminal defenders to delay incarceration since overburdened court systems do not usually hold hearings immediately after a defendant is charged. The appeals process also contributes to delays in any swift punishment. Finally, many assume that the high number of inmates in our nation's prisons illustrates severity of punishment. More people are in prison today than at any other point in US history. Incarceration rates continue to climb due to mandatory sentencing laws and sentencing guidelines. So, our deterrent signals are mixed, and it should be no surprise that our recidivism rates are high, as repeat offenders are committing 80 percent of felony crimes. One example is the most severe form of punishment - capital punishment. This is not viewed as an effective deterrent, particularly for violent crimes of passion. There are concerns about wrongful conviction, the expensive nature of multiple layers of legal appeals and constitutional questions about the Eighth Amendment. Nonetheless, over 65% of Americans continue to support its use with 34 states currently performing executions. Policing Functions Policing is considered to be a \"reserved\" power outlined in the Constitution's Tenth Amendment and should be a state function. Nonetheless, there are several major federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Police enforce laws, keep the peace and furnish services (primarily in efforts to resolve conflict in society). The police are society's front line when it comes to resolving conflict and most police activity is reactive - such as responding to an incident. However, proactive policing or community policing is becoming more common. The goal is to be visible on the streets, win the confidence of community members, and keep away criminal elements through their presence. Cherished Personal Liberties Criminal justice policies are always a delicate balance between personal liberty and the desire to reduce crime. United States is highly committed to "due process" of law, which seemingly conflicts with rational criminal justice policies. There are constitutional protections against arbitrary search and seizure, imprisonment without cause, forced confession, torture, and human rights abuses. From Article I, Section 9, we have protection against imprisonment without cause: \"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.\" Amendment IV protects against unreasonable search and seizure: \"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\" Amendment V protects against forced confessions: \"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.\" Amendment VIII protects against torture and human rights abuses: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" The debate over gun control is one example of how the desire to preserve public safety and decrease crime conflicts with constitutional protections (in this case, the Second Amendment right to bear arms). The underlying assumption of gun control is that restricting purchases or banning civilian use of firearms will result in fewer crimes. Over 60 percent of homicides in the United States are committed with handguns. Therefore, the federal government has put several gun control laws in place. The Gun Control Act of 1968 bans interstate sales of handguns, prohibits sales to convicted felons or the mentally ill, and requires licensing of firearms dealers. The Brady Law was passed in 1993 and requires a five-day waiting period for gun purchases. The law was named after President Ronald Reagan's former press secretary who was shot and paralyzed in the 1981 assassination attempt on the president. The mandated waiting period allows for background checks to be performed on purchasers. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 restricts private ownership of automatic and assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004 and has yet to be renewed. Opponents of the ban state there is little evidence that the law reduced violent crime, as few crimes are actually committed using assault weapons. Supporters state that there is little justification for a civilian to own this type of weapon and the ban has reduced the overall supply of these weapons on the market, thereby limiting sales by criminals. The Second Amendment states, \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" Supporters of the right to bear arms feel that individual citizens should be able to protect themselves from crime and tyranny. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, \"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.\" In this case, the District of Columbia's total ban on guns violated individual rights. However, federal gun control laws have not been overturned by the courts, meaning that there is a middle ground to be found between restricting access to firearms to reduce crime and preserving Second Amendment rights. Where that middle ground exists is up for debate and unlikely to ever be completely resolved. Another example of finding balance between preserving personal liberties and the desire to reduce crime is national security policies that can challenge our constitutional rights of due process. The PATRIOT Act expanded powers for search, seizure, surveillance, and detention. Questions also remain about what to do with enemy combatants and detainees in US custody: what rights do they have, and how long can they be detained? Federal Versus State and Local Law Enforcement Thousands of agents work for federal law enforcement agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) within the Department of the Treasury. Nonetheless, most law enforcement activities occur at a state and local level, with 1.7 million state and local law enforcement personnel working to keep the peace and manage prison and parole programs. Despite police power is considered to be a reserved power outlined in the Tenth Amendment, there is constant pressure to expand the role of federal law enforcement as more and more offenses are considered federal crimes. More crimes, once handled at a state and local level, are now being investigated and prosecuted by federal agents and tried in federal courts. The war on drugs is a stunning example of how significant federal, state, and local law enforcement resources can be invested in a problem, but with mixed results. Levels of drug use have not plummeted and drug-related arrests continue to climb according to a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The push for legalization of marijuana at a state level, despite federal drug policies, highlights the extent of these policy conflicts. In the case of Gonzales v. Raich, medical marijuana users argued that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) overstepped boundaries defined for congressional regulation of interstate commerce. Therefore, users are not committing a crime by using medical marijuana as it is allowed in California under the state's Compassionate Use Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government in the Raich case, upholding the enforcement of the CSA. The Department of Justice recently issued formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Video Icon Watch - Are Mandatory Minimum Sentences an Injustice? (from CBS Sunday Morning)