As with almost everything in this universe, the current state of the American justice system did not manifest overnight. Rather, it has been shaped by major events that have occurred in this country’s long history. Also, these formative events have not always had a beneficial effect on the operation of the criminal justice system, and can sometimes damage this entity’s integrity to the extent that people believe nothing can be done. All in all, the American justice system needs to make major reforms to protect all American citizens, and ensure that all people have the same rights in order to create an actual free and democratic society.
Throughout the history of the of the United States, many different racial groups have been targeted and discriminated against by the majority of Americans; white people. One of the many examples of this has to do with Japanese Americans. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized military zones within the United States where over 110,000 American citizens with Japanese heritage were incarcerated without proper cause (Taylor). This was obviously in violation of many constitutional rights, however even the President did not care. Another example of casteism the United States has to do with the discrimination of African Americans. The major effects of this discrimination are still affecting some Americans quality of life. A major fuel starter to this was slavery where millions of slaves were brought from
Africa to the new world. In america, they were greeted with extremely poor working environments, and were treated like second class citizens behind everyone else. After the Civil War, slaves were technically free, but they were still not treated in the same way as white people. Jim Crow laws went into effect that limited African Americans rights and created much more segregation and hatred between races. Along with this hatred came riots where many people were either arrested, injured, or even killed. By treating people differently based just on their race, a hidden caste system is created where people have a hard time making what they want out of their lives. These two examples are only some of the many examples of the white man’s self-perceived racial superiority that has caused the pain and degradation of several minority groups. Examples other than the Japanese and the African Americans would include the Irish and Native Americans. Even today racial superiority is still causing preventable problems that have stemmed from the long held belief that white Americans are superior to every other race in the world.
Along with how the Americans perceive themselves to be better than anyone, they also believe that their justice system is world class. They believe this because of all of the important steps in the justice system that give the feeling that all cases are decided based on logic and facts, cold hard facts. The progression for the criminal justice system starts with the investigation stage where investigators gather evidence and information for the prosecutor so they can come up with charges to press. In order for the investigators to even start their search, they must first obtain a search warrant, signed by a judge, or they must have observed probable cause to search the suspect and his/her belongings or property. After this investigative stage, it is time for the charges to be created. In this part of the progression, the prosecutor studies the evidence that was collected by the investigators to identify specific laws that the suspect broke. The prosecutor may as well conduct extra interviews with witnesses or other persons who were involved in the incident. From all of this information, an indictment is created and sent to the suspect to inform them that they are believed to have committed a crime and must appear in court. The first court date is called the initial hearing or arraignment. The purpose for this hearing is to, yet again, inform the defendant that they are being charged with a crime and to inform them of their rights. At this time, the suspect may be released on bail, if the judge sees that the defendant is not a threat to the community and public safety. This is also based on the prior criminal record of the defendant. During this time between the initial hearing and the start of the trial, a plea bargain may be offered to the defendant. This happens in cases where the prosecutors have a strong case against the defendant so that a lengthy trial can be skipped. The trial may only be skipped if the defendant accepts the plea deal and plead guilty to the charges. Then, the sentencing may begin. If the defendant does not accept the plea deal, then a trial must be held. The trial is the main event for prosecutors and defense attorneys. Before the trial begins, a set of people must be chosen to decide the case. This group of people is called the jury and they decide, based on evidence presented to them by both the defense and prosecution, whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent. The judge’s role in the trial is to make sure the evidence presented to the jury is fair. This is like a referee in a basketball game. If the defendant is found to be innocent by the jury, then they are released and allowed to return home. However, if they are found to be guilty, then the next step of the process ensues; sentencing. A few months after a guilty verdict, the judge of the case gets to decide what consequences the defendant must face. For many crimes, Congress has already set minimum and maximum sentence so that judges have a place to start, however, sentencing is ultimately up to the judge (justice.gov).
After going through a brief summary of the American justice system, it is evident that the threat of corruption and problems within the system is high. This is partly in due to the fact that this system relies too much on everyone in the system doing the morally right thing. This leads cases being decided in different ways and does not allow equal trials for all. This problem does not only surface in the courtroom. It is also present before the trial even starts. For example, the idea of bail is morally wrong because it discriminates against poor people and allows people with enough money to meet bail to leave jail. Nothing in the justice system should have to do with a defendant’s economic standing because it is not relevant, except for in very specific cases. In order for the justice system to be truly fair, the structure must be changed to have a stronger and more clear framework.
Along with the problems with the way this system is put together, comes an extremely high incarceration rate. Today, the incarcerated population in the United States Of America makes almost any other country’s incarcerated population seem remarkably small. Since the mid 1960’s, the incarcerated population has been growing exponentially. In the year 1960, the inmate population across the country was 250,000 people. In 2008, the inmate population was nearly ten times higher than in 1960, with almost 2,500,000 locked up behind the bars of American prisons (november.org, Incarcerated Americans). Just for comparison, China’s prison population in 2005 was 1,548,498 (http://news.bbc.co.uk). This huge increase of prison population has to do with many different factors, including presidential reforms and and the belief in racial superiority. In 1973, Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in which drug users were targeted and incarcerated. This presidential reform pulled the trigger and began the exponential growth of the inmate population in America. Also, since it is still a problem today, it is troubling to see that very little has been done to try to correct this issue that has led to a mass incarceration.
Since the issue of mass incarceration does not seem to be on the federal government’s list of important things to fix, many people do not know what it is and what the consequences are. Even though many people have been affected by the wrongdoings of mass incarceration, they do not know that they are victims of mass incarceration. According to Christopher Wildeman, mass incarceration is a time where rates of imprisonment are comparatively and historically high and usually there is one type of person that is targeted (Oxfordbibliographies.com). When comparing the definition of mass incarceration that Mr. Wildeman proposed to what has been happening with the American justice system for the past 45 years, it is apparent that people have been blindly witnessing this dwindle communities. When a mass incarceration occurs, several social problems arise with it. Some examples of these problems would include racism, poverty, and segregation. Mass incarceration has taken a toll on many American societies and needs to be toward the front of federal and state agendas before any progress will be made.
All of the problems in the prison system are too long to list, nonetheless, they can be categorized into three main problems. The three main problems have to do with the quality of life behind bars, how money has taken over the prison system, and the widespread discrimination that has hindered the American justice system. Many of these problems have also grown from changes that have been made in the history of the United States. Many of the impacts have already occurred and created mass amounts of damage, but more impacts are starting to make themselves evident, and existing effects are beginning to become stronger. For these reasons, something must be done in order to allow society, and the individual, to thrive.
The average day for an inmate compared to the average day for a person that is not incarcerated is much different. The daily routines in prison can be hard for new inmates to get used to, especially if it is someone's first time being incarcerated. The day starts as early as four in the morning for many inmates who have duties in the kitchen. They have to get food ready for the rest of the inmates. After the inmates eat, most have jobs that they must attend to. In many prisons, however, there are so many inmates that jobs become repetitive and are unnecessary.
On top of being repetitive and unnecessary, the prisoners that are forced to do this work are paid a very little amount. According to Daniel Roberts’ interview with Matthew Kluger, the prisoners “get $15 a month”(Roberts) to do a job in the prison. This is a very small amount for workers to be paid for five days a week of work. Also, in many prisons, inmates must purchase their own health care products and other items. The bad part is that many of these products’ prices are marked up marginally. For example, in Kluger’s interview he describes when he purchased a watch in prison, and the price was “double what they charged at Walmart” (Roberts). By paying the workers a little amount, and then forcing them to pay higher than normal prices for everyday items, the inmate is taken advantage of by the system. Evenmore, many people in the prison system are already in poverty. In 2014, the median income of incarcerated people was 41% smaller than people who were not incarcerated (Kopf, Rabuy). This is just to show that if one can be taken advantage of, they will be taken advantage of.
Other than being taken advantage of on a financial basis, prisoners are subject to being locked up, all alone, for 23 hours a day if prison officials see fit. The inmates in solitary confinement do not even get the chance to work, they get very little human interaction, and they are kept in complete isolation in a very small cell. These cells are specifically designed so that the person inside cannot try and take their life. In Sharon Shalev’s book, Supermax:Controlling Risk Through Solitary Confinement, a prison architect is interviewed and shares what he knows about the design of supermax prisons. All parts of the design of the prison are made to do one thing, and that is to “achieve maximum control of prisoners” (Shalev 44). This even goes to the extent of painting the walls colors that psychologically help achieve this goal. By forcing the inmates to be alone for so long, how are they supposed to continue being socially adept? It is not reasonable to believe that long periods of isolation will help reintegrate a person into society.
However, there are different levels of isolation that a prison can offer. First, there are minimum security prisons. Minimum security prisons provide for mostly criminals who have committed non-violent crimes, such as fraud, or have shown good behavior in other facilities. There are also usually less guards, the cells are slightly nicer, and inmates get more personal freedoms. The next step up are the medium security prisons that are the more standard facilities. The guards are more armed and the prisoners are on a stricter schedule, compared to inmates in minimum security prisons. And finally, there are high security prisons. This is where the most dangerous criminals are serving their sentences. Many of them have to stay in isolation for much of the day, due to the lack of freedoms that the prisoners have (crimemuseum.org). Minimum and medium security prisons may not seem to be horrible, the high security prisons are a nightmare. While the idea of splitting up inmates based on behaviors is a good idea, it is how the people who need the most help are being secluded that is the bad idea.
One problem with coming up with a solution to this problem is that there are two different distinctions for a prison. They can be federal or state run, so legislation to make a change would have to span to encapsulate both state and federal laws. However, as of 2017, the federal prison system only has only 216,362 inmates compared to the state prison systems that have a combined inmate population of 1,362,28 (Sakala, Wagner). This being said,by starting at the state level, the majority of inmates will benefit. In order for this to be done, the federal system needs to take some of the weight off of the state system in order to free up money to make changes.
One way this can be done is by grants from the federal government to the state government. Recently, certain lawmakers have been pushing for an increase to three specific grants: the Second Chance Act, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, and the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program. The Second Chance Act aims at providing programs that help keep people out of prison. This act was a necessity for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, where grants helped fund “a reentry program that reduced rearrests among participants by an estimated 24 percent, using intensive case management to help people plan for life in the community before leaving jail, and connecting them to behavioral health services, housing, and other resources once they were back in the community” (Bailey) The importance of this program is very evident, and helps keep people going on the right track. Evenso, the approved 2018 funding bill sets aside $70 million for this grants, which is $30 million less than in 2010 (Bailey). To allow this act to do what it was designed to do, more funding must be set aside. This will also allow more people to avoid prison time, and get the help that they need.
Another grant that has been at the center of attention recently has been the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. This initiative helps states lower corrections spending and also improve the general public's safety. For example, money from this grant is used to help states achieve the overall goal of lowering inmate populations. Funding for this grant, unsurprisingly, was also cut in 2017, but is staying the same for 2018 (Bailey). While the funding is not being cut, by lawmakers keeping it the same, it shows that fixing the prison system is not as big of a priority to the government as politicians make it out to be.
The last grant that has been making headlines in the news is the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, which provides grants to states to help meet the needs of mentally ill people in the justice system. Helping mentally ill people behind bars has been a known weakness to the American justice system, so the money from these grants are exceedingly needed. One crucial thing that this grant helps fund is training to officers and guards to identify mental illness and help the mentally ill find the help they need. In 2018, the funding bill increased the money allocated to the grant by $2 million, to make the total $14 million, which is still way below the $50 million cap that is set for the grant (Bailey). Helping the mentally ill find the help that they need is the right thing to do, and also will help lower the outstanding prison population that we have in America today.
One main contributor to the enormous prison population is the implementation of private prisons. These prisons are owned by private corporations, that hire their own guards, and charge the government to house their inmates, based on a daily fee. A lot of money is to be made in the private prison system, and many companies have jumped on the opportunity. According to a NBC News article on November 2nd, 2015, “Private correctional facilities were a $4.8 billion industry… with profits of $629 million” (White). These corporations are making money off of people making mistakes, which does not seem to be very ethical, and can create many disagreements.
One of the main reasons the United States started using prisons in the private sector was to lower the cost of housing inmates. The theory was that the private sector could house inmates for a lower cost than the government could. In order for costs to be cut, however, some services may not be available because the overall goal of a private prison is to make money, not to rehabilitate the inmates. Unfortunately, private prisons have not been helping keep down costs for the government. Actually, private prisons cost about the same, and provide worse care to the inmates; “More than a decade ago, researchers found that private facilities pay their officers less, provide fewer hours of training and have higher inmate-to-staff ratios, a combination which may account for their much higher turnover rate among correctional officers, as well as the uptick in inmate assaults” (Margulies). Since these private facilities are underperforming as well as not saving the government money, it is obvious that the experiment of privatizing the prison system has shown to be a failure. Failure is not all bad, however, because from this experiment one could learn that money and justice can cause many disagreements.
The reasons for the clashes that private prisons create is simple. The goals of private prison operators are completely opposite from the goals of the rest of the country. In order for these private companies to make millions of dollars a year, people need to commit crimes. The more crimes that are commited, the more inmates, so more money for the company. This demonstrates how this industry relies on a high crime rate, which is not what Americans want. Naturally, people want to live a life where they do not have to worry about crime. Because of this discrepancy in ideals, the government should step in and represent what the people want, however, the United States government is not doing this because they started this problem.
In the 60’s prison populations began to increase, but the major spike started in the 70’s. This is when Richard Nixon was President of the United States, and in 1973 the original “war on drugs” was implemented to stop drug trafficking on American streets. In order to do this, many FBI sting operations took place to get big drug dealers, but that was not the problem with the “war on drugs.” The problem was that the drug user was targeted just as heavily as the dealer. This became an even more apparent flaw in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan decided to pour more resources into this epidemic. President Reagan created a “federal drug task force” that helped “foster a culture that demonized drug use and drug users”. Due to this mindset and the new funding towards stopping drug usage, arrests for drug possession jumped from 500,000 in 1982, to 1.5 million in 2007 (Cooper). Many may first look at this data and think that the rise is due to increased drug use in the United States, however, that is not true.
Rather, the federal government created financial incentives for local police forces to “engage in mass drug arrests through military-style tactics” (Alexander, 16). This was one way that was used to target drug users, but many groups were even targeted within
the drug user category. For example, African Americans and Latino Americans were especially targeted in the “war on drugs”.
Using a method known as stop and frisk, police officers can stop a person on the street, if they find it reasonable, and can search their belongings if they suspect that the person is carrying a weapon. The original purpose of the frisk part of this method was to help ensure officer safety during a confrontation (Cooper). Despite its purpose, police officers have been using stop and frisk to take advantage of people’s 4th amendment right which protects people against unreasonable searches. For example, between 2002 and 2014, over five million people were subject to stop and frisk in New York. Of those five million, only between 10-18% were found to have committed some sort of offense. Going even further, in a predominantly Latino and African American neighborhood of 14,000 residents, New York police conducted over 52,000 stop and frisks, many coming up empty handed (Cooper). This averages out to be over 3 stops per resident. This fact is not saying that all police officers in New York are racist, rather it shows how easily influenced the American law enforcement is.
The “war on drugs” has exposed many of the flaws of the American justice system. Some of these problems include targeting specific races, violating one’s fourth amendment rights, and an increased strain on prisons due to more people being arrested. While the “war on drugs” was exposed to the American public, many other corruptive and discriminatory tactics are used in our justice system covertly.
After being arrested, one should be able to expect that they will receive a fair trial that is based on evidence. Even so, in many states district attorneys offer incentives to prosecutors to achieve a certain conviction rate. For example, “a district attorney in Colorado recently paid prosecutors bonuses averaging $1,100 for achieving at least a 70 percent conviction rate in five or more felony trials during the year.” Another example occured in Texas, where one district attorney told prosecutors that the one with the most convictions got to “sit second chair on a murder case” (Joy, McMunigal). By incentivizing guilty convictions, prosecutors scramble to do anything they can to make sure their conviction rate is high. The extra money would help the family out, and sitting second chair on a murder case would be great experience for an up and coming prosecutor. This blinds the attorney, and can add bias to the decisions of many cases. This is unfair to the defendant, and can cause innocent people to spend time behind bars for crimes they did not commit.
Also in the courtroom, it is necessary to remember that the judge can have a large say in the outcome of the case. While judges in criminal cases are really mediators between the jury and the attornies, there are other types of judges that voice their opinion about changes in policy, and about the legality of policies. These judges can be part of the United States Supreme Court or part of one of the circuits of appeals. Since these judges make decisions about political issues, their political beliefs are a main driver for the policies that are passed and placed into law. With this system, people may become a judge “in order to nudge policy closer to their political goals” (Posner 25). When people become focused on their own ideals, they can forget about how this impacts other people. On the other hand, pushing policy closer to one's political goals can help people, if the goal is good. However, it is very apparent that not everyone has political goals that help people grow and become more successful.
A great example of this would be Japanese Internment camps here in the loving United States of America. Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Executive Order 9066 authorized military zones within the United States, as well as help lead to the incarceration of many Japanese people. The legality of this practice was questioned by many people, and in the Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States, judges ruled “that race did not factor into the internment of Japanese Americans and that internment was a military necessity” (Nittle). Yes, there was a threat from Japan at this time in World War II since they had just bombed Pearl Harbor, however, not all Japanese people had radical views and were communists. Even if they were all communist, it would still be wrong to incarcerate someone based off of their political views since America is supposed to be the place where people can believe what they want to believe. Japanese Internment camps were yet another way that the United States used discrimination to gain control of a specific group of people, and throw them all in prison.
While in many cases of discrimination it is one racial group that is being targeted, all prisoners, no matter the race, have been discriminated against by 13th Amendment. The 13th amendment states that all slavery is illegal, unless it is as punishment for a crime. The issue with the 13th amendment is that it allows slave labor of inmates in prison. This essentially confiscates the inmates constitutional right. For example, the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in Angola, Louisiana, is set on an old cotton plantation. Prisoners at Angola can be forced to work in the fields if the prison doctor says they are physically fit to do so. If a prisoner refuses to work, they can be punished by weeks of solitary confinement. Legally, these modern day slaves do not need to be paid, so they really are slaves. (Benns). By forcing these inmates to work, slavery is merely reinvented to take it out of the public's view. This also demonstrates how many inmates lose their sense of humanity, since they can be forced to work like many slaves did before the 13th amendment.
Another way that the 13th amendment is used is by companies taking advantage of the low labor costs in prison. The wages for the inmates making the products is usually less than a dollar an hour. Ironically, Whole Foods is one of the companies who has used prison labor. Whole Foods stands for the exceptional treatment of animals, but by using prison labor, it is evident that they do not have the same standards for treatment of employees. The prison workers for Whole Foods were in Colorado, and made 74 cents an hour, without days off. Another company that is guilty of the same thing is AT&T. AT&T laid off many employees in call centers in favor of prison labor. Prison workers took these jobs, and AT&T’s profits started to increase due to the low wages (Zambas). To even allow companies to take advantage of prisoners like this is insane. The corporations, which are already rich, get to make more profits while the prisoners, many of whom are struggling financially, get paid way under minimum wage. This shows the bias the government has towards large private sector companies, even within the justice system.
The American justice system obviously has many flaws, some of which are very detrimental to the American society. In order to fix these flaws, three main criteria should be met; reform should start at the state level, financial incentives need to be ended, and rehabilitation should become a higher priority.
Since the majority of inmates in America are behind the bars of state prisons, it would only make sense for reform to begin at the state level. This would allow the most inmates to see the changes in the shortest amount of time. This also allows states to pass the reforms that are right for their state and not the ones that do not fit. For example, Wyoming may need to focus its reforms on getting rid of private prisons while Colorado focuses on reforms against incentives that district attorneys give prosecutors. If federal laws were changed first, all states would have to comply, even if it is not in the states best interest.
While the states make their own prison reforms, the federal government should be taking a close look to see what reforms are being passed and where. If one certain policy seems to be beneficial to the majority of states, then it should become a federal law. However, there is one reform that the federal government should put into place no matter what. That reform would be to outlaw all prisons in the private sector.
Private prisons need to be outlawed immediately. It is extremely morally wrong to make money off of the punishment of human beings. In America, the biggest motivator for people is money. If there is a way to make money, someone will find it, and they will try to make the most money they can. In order for private prisons to make as much money as possible, many programs are cut not allowing the prisoners to get the help that they need. Prisoners quality of life is diminished in favor of making a corporation a couple more dollars. The reform to get rid of private prisons would help the American government prove to its people that they matter most, not money.
Another way that the government could prove this is by getting rid of any kind of incentive within the justice system. An incentive is something that motivates a person to do something. In the case of the justice system, incentives are usually money. Incentives that the prosecutors get for a guilty conviction is a perfect example of this. This causes the prosecutor to do anything to get a guilty conviction, and therefore does not allow the prosecutor to do their job. Court should be a place where the truth is spoken, and should not have any outside influences that can cause cases to be judged in a different manner, practically eliminating ones right to a fair and equal trial.
Another branch of the justice system also loses functionality when incentives are introduced. During the war on drugs, there were many incentives for local police forces to increase drug related arrests. This put the main focus of many police departments on drugs instead of other, more dangerous, crime. Incentives within the American justice system can be seen as a way to corrupt the system while benefiting less people than they hurt. This system needs to be as honest as possible, and incentives inhibit its ability to do this.