1 TIME TO GO BACK: REFORMATION OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TALISHA GRIFFIN I. INTRODUCTION Mankind’s body of knowledge stems from information passed down over time. Arguably history is man’s knowledge. 1 It is wise to try to understand the history of something —whatever it may be—because it reveals the outcome that can follow from certain behaviors, actions, and decisions. 2 It is important to know the history of the American criminal justice system (“ ACJS”) and to understand its intended purpose. Without such an understanding one can easily be misled as to the function of the system. The purpose of the modern ACJS is to: (1) control crime, (2) prevent crime, and (3) provide and maintain justice. 3 This paper focuses on the second goal of the ACJS, prevention of future crimes, and the necessary reform the systems needs in order to obtain such a goal. The goal to control crime works hand-and-hand with the goal to prevent crime because the government, in the process of controlling crime, hopes to prevent new crime. 4 The issue lies in the precise methods that should 1 See SAMUEL WALKER, POPULAR JUST ICE: A HISTORY OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUST ICE 5 (1980) (citing to William Appleman Williams that history “is a way of learning”). The ACJS encompasses the law, law enforcement, corrections, and the judicial branch. 2 See id. (explaining that the study of history can tell us how people viewed problems at different times and how those views translated into social policy, which dictates how people should be living). 3 See L ARRY K. G AINES , ROGER L EE MILLER, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN ACTION 10 (Cengage 2013) (explaining that the modern criminal justice system can be separated into three general goals). By arresting and prosecuting individuals the system is attempting to control crime. Id. Within that process, however, the system is supposed to prevent crime from taking place. Id. There is much diversity on the methods that are appropriate, effective, and efficient in reaching those two goals. Maintaining justice is a complicated goal because justice is a subjective concept. Id. The idea of justice correlates with fairness. Id. Fairness too is a subjective term. 4 See Gaines & Miller, supra note 3, at 10 (stating that while in the process of controlling crime, the system hopes to prevent new crimes from taking place).
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
TIME TO GO BACK: REFORMATION OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
TALISHA GRIFFIN
I. INTRODUCTION
Mankind’s body of knowledge stems from information passed down over time. Arguably
history is man’s knowledge.1 It is wise to try to understand the history of something—whatever it
may be—because it reveals the outcome that can follow from certain behaviors, actions, and
decisions.2 It is important to know the history of the American criminal justice system (“ACJS”)
and to understand its intended purpose. Without such an understanding one can easily be misled
as to the function of the system. The purpose of the modern ACJS is to: (1) control crime, (2)
prevent crime, and (3) provide and maintain justice.3
This paper focuses on the second goal of the ACJS, prevention of future crimes, and the
necessary reform the systems needs in order to obtain such a goal. The goal to control crime works
hand-and-hand with the goal to prevent crime because the government, in the process of
controlling crime, hopes to prevent new crime.4 The issue lies in the precise methods that should
1 See SAMUEL WALKER, POPULAR JUSTICE: A HISTORY OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 5 (1980) (citing to
William Appleman Williams that history “is a way of learning”). The ACJS encompasses the law, law enforcement,
corrections, and the judicial branch.
2 See id. (explaining that the study of history can tell us how people viewed problems at different times and how
those views translated into social policy, which dictates how people should be living).
3 See LARRY K. GAINES, ROGER LEE MILLER, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN ACTION 10 (Cengage 2013) (explaining that
the modern criminal justice system can be separated into three general goals). By arresting and prosecuting individuals
the system is attempting to control crime. Id. Within that process, however, the system is supposed to prevent crime
from taking place. Id. There is much diversity on the methods that are appropriate, effective, and efficient in reaching
those two goals.
Maintaining justice is a complicated goal because justice is a subjective concept. Id. The idea of justice correlates
with fairness. Id. Fairness too is a subjective term.
4 See Gaines & Miller, supra note 3, at 10 (stating that while in the process of controlling crime, the system hopes
to prevent new crimes from taking place).
2
be used to reach each goal.5 Towards the last quarter of the twentieth century the ACJS shifted
from a rehabilitative model to achieve the second goal to a punitive model.6 The punitive model,
however, is not designed to efficiently and effectively prevent crime.
This paper argues for the reform of the ACJS from a punitive model to a rehabilitative model.
This paper will examine the ACJS history and its disproportionate impact on social minorit ies.
This paper will focus on developing an effective and efficient method to help reach the second
goal of the ACJS. There is ample research showing the success in reducing recidivism when
offenders receive help post-incarceration as well as pre-incarceration in the form of rehabilita t ion
and support.7 Despite this data, the ACJS has failed to implement a unified post-incarcerat ion
system that is designed to ensure offenders adjust and become a functioning, contributing member
of society. The complacency of the government is unnerving because the current post-
incarceration system seems to perpetuate recidivism instead of reducing it.8 Part II provides a
history of the ACJS and its transition from a rehabilitative to a punitive model.9 Part III analyzes
5 See id. (concluding many observes differ on the precise methods of reaching the goals of controlling and
preventing crime).
6 See infra Part II (explaining the shift).
7 See Mark W. Lipsey, Gabrielle L. Chapman, & Nana A. Landenberger, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for
Offenders, 578 ANNALS OF THE AM. ACADEMY OF POL. AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 144, 152 (2001) (providing findings of
fourteen studies that showed cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) effective in reducing recidivism). All fourteen
studies indicate lower recidivism for offenders receiving CBT than those in the control group who did not receive
CBT. Id. These fourteen studies ranged from the year 1988–2000. Id. at 151.
8 See Anthony E. Bottoms, Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in Prisons, 26 CRIME & JUSTICE 205, 205
(1999) (explaining the two types of criminal behavior that takes place in prison). There are two main types of behavior
seen in prison: interpersonal violence and collective violence. Id. at 205–06. Collective violence occurs , when there
is a breakdown in the normal patterns of social order within the institution, which results in actions like riots. Id. at
206. Interpersonal violence occurs when violent events take place within the everyday framework of the prison’s
social order. Id. Bottoms goes on to explain that in order to understand the individual aspect of crimes committed
within the prison, one must understand the social organization of the prison because the interpersonal violence always
occurs within the social context of daily prison life. Id. at 207.
9 See infra Part II (focusing on the transition of the criminal justice system from a rehabilitative model to a punitive
model of punishment for persons who commit crimes).
3
the current ACJS and the adoption of the punitive model, revealing its affects on race, recidivism,
and the community.10 Part IV proposes that the punitive model be replaced with the rehabilitative
model by creating a uniform rehabilitative system designed to address the needs of offenders post-
incarceration so that they may become functioning, contributing members of society thereby
reducing recidivism—achieving the prevention of crime efficiently and effectively.11
II. THE HISTORY OF THE ACJS
History is “a way of learning.”12 Thus, it is important to know history. Without the
understanding of where something originated, or where a concept derived from that is now
considered truth, people are vulnerable to being misled from the real truth.13 As can be seen today,
time has passed, history has been forgotten, and truth has been manipulated to benefit a “minor ity”
of individuals. Part II.A of this section provides the history for the ACJS so a proper analysis of
the system can be conducted. Part II.B explores the concept of slavery and social control as it
relates to the ACJS today. Part II.C discusses the concept and history of rehabilitation in the ACJS.
A. History and Purpose of the ACJS
The structure of the ACJS began when displaced European institutions made their way to the
new world.14 The American Revolution, and the urbanization of society, had a profound influence
on America’s criminal justice system. Prior to the Revolution, colonists “cultural baggage”
10 See infra Part III (providing an analysis to the use of the modern ACJS to control minority groups).
11 See infra Part IV (examining the potential success that can be seen in reaching the second goal if a uniform
rehabilitative model was adopted that was carried by the community not the system its elf).
12 See Walker, supra note 1, at 5 (citing to William Appleman Williams that history is a way of learning).
13 It is important to understand, however, truth is subjective in this world. Without experiencing something for
one’s self, one is not uncovering the real truth. Truth is based off of others perception that what is being said is true.
14 See Walker, supra note 1, at 11 (discussing the major shift in ideology of how a criminal justice system should
function after the American Revolution and transition in society).
4
influenced the criminal codes, law enforcement systems, courts, and methods of punishment. 15
The 1648 Book of General Lawes and Liberties of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was rooted in
religion from England and other colonies.16 Colonial criminal codes, however, were more lenient
in their approach to punishment than English law—e.g. the fewer number of crimes that carried
the death penalty.17 As time passed, settling colonies experienced problems establishing their
communities in the wilderness.18 This led individuals to take matters into their own hands, which
gave rise to the “American tradition of vigilantism.”19 I explores the colonial period where the
ACJS began to take form and vigilantism became a weapon to seek justice, and then focuses on
the American Revolution and the urbanization of America and its effect on the system. I will then
explore the modern ACJS.
1. Colonial Criminology and Vigilantism
The colonialist perspective of crime and punishment stemmed from the understanding that
society was designed to fulfill the will of God.20 This meant offenses that went against the notion
of morality were not taken lightly. “An offense against God was a crime against society; and a
15 See id. (explaining that dependent on the colonist, the ideas resembled those of England, Holland, and France).
16 See id. at 11.
17 See id. at 12 (discussing how in England death as punishment was more prevalent). The first Pennsylvania
Criminal Code (1676) had eleven crimes that carried a sentence of death. Id. The other colonies had similar numbers.
Walker, supra note 1, at 12. Whereas, in England there were fifty crimes punishable by death in the late 1600s. Id.
This increased to over 200 by the late 1700s. Id.
18 See id. (meaning there were issues of having the appropriate resources to have law enforcement agencies, courts,
and punishment systems they may have wanted).
19 Id.
20 See id. at 13.
5
crime against society was an offense against God.”21 What was considered right and wrong
stemmed from religious theology.
In the name of religion, the death penalty was imposed for certain crimes such as murder, rape,
adultery, and kidnapping.22 Branding of letters was carried out for less severe crimes such as
burglary.23 A three strike you’re out approach was incorporated for preventing the repeat of
burglary offenses, however, it is more appropriate to characterize the approach as three strikes
you’re dead.24 In addition, public whipping, branding, and mutilation were popular forms of
punishment for felonies and misdemeanors throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.25
In addition to treating criminals harshly, the colonial communities treated the poor in similar
ways.26 This resulted in the entwinement of the criminal justice system and social welfare, now
making the poor and criminals one class of individuals subject to the control and order of the
“majority.”27 This laid the foundation for the system’s ability to sustain a racial social order.28
21 Id. For example, blasphemy carried a sentence of death. Walker, supra note 1, at 13.
22 See id. at 14 (explaining Connecticut carried the death sentence for fourteen crimes in 1650).
23 Id.
24 See id. (discussing that after three offenses for burglary a person was sentenced to death in East Jersey in 1668);
see also John A. Davis, Blacks, Crime, and American Culture, 423 ANN. AM. ACADEMY POL. & SOC. SCIENCE 89, 95
(1976) (showing crimes against property were crimes committed by predominately African Americans).
25 See Walker, supra note 1, at 14.
26 See id. at 15 (uncovering that individuals without jobs or considered to likely become a ward of the state were
often forced to leave the community).
27 See id. at 16 (punishing the poor for receiving public welfare, and requiring a person on relief to wear a poverty
badge bearing a large P on the shoulder of the right sleeve). Individuals who did not wish to be labeled for being poor
were punished by having their relief taken away, as well as whipped and sent to the house of correction for up to
twenty-two days at hard labor. Id. The combining of the social welfare and criminal justice system allowed the
control over the poor, the idle, and the lower classes in general. Id.
28 See id. at 17 (finding for an offense of robbery the sentence imposed was either life or servitude, a fixed term, or
until restitution was made).
6
The development of a penal system to enslave minorities in America has been traced back to
Massachusetts in the 1630s.29 Originally life servitude was reserved particularly for Indians
captured in war.30 However, over time the servitude punishment was used exclusively for
nonwhites.31 Scholars who have examined the Massachusetts Black Codes of 1752 have found
clear indication that it was held “Nonwhites were the cause of all disorder and inconvenience. ”32
Thus, SCJA was used to control racial minorities from its earliest years.
2. American Revolution and Urbanization
When the American Revolution swept across the country, an understanding of life rooted in
religion was uprooted and replaced with a more secular perspective.33 In addition, urban growth
caused new social problems and imposed new burdens on the criminal justice system.34 The
struggle for independence combined with the creation of a new nation had a profound effect on
the modern ACJS. Along with independence came a tradition of vigilante-style violence and
lawlessness.35
29 See Walker, supra note 1, at 17.
30 See id. at 17.
31 Id.
32 See A. LEON HIGGINSBOTHAM JR., IN THE MATTER OF COLOR-RACE AND THE AMERICAN LEGAL PROCESS: THE
COLONIAL PERIOD 81 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
33 See Walker, supra note 1, at 12 (noting that in Puritan Massachusetts religious influence had declined by the time
of the American Revolution).
34 See id. at 12.
35 See id. at 44 (explaining that the idea of government and its control over people began to change). The founding
fathers defined liberty to mean that government should not punish an individual for a crime except after a proceeding
in which the accused has been given the same procedural opportunities to prove his innocence as the state has to prove
guilt. Id.
7
In order for the American Revolution to come to light, civil disobedience was necessary.36
Civil disobedience was necessary because without citizens rebelling and demanding change
nothing would change. Revolutions occur because there is major conflict between groups of
individuals.37 A tension exists as to standing on what is right and wrong, who should make such
decisions, how things should work, etc. History reveals the use of violence by those groups who
felt they were best to make decisions.38 For the colonist and the beginning of America, violence
was used.39 “Violence, even vigilante-style actions against individuals and groups, became
enshrined as a legitimate means to defend freedom and liberty.”40
It is important to understand how America came to be because it shows the foundation in which
this country was built on. The political techniques believed to be necessary to establish a
community where freedom and liberty rained, consisted of civil disobedience, mob action,
collective protest, and vigilante action.41 As a result, “the long-term result has been a tradition of
political lawlessness for both good and bad purposes.”42
With the arrival of American independence came written documents drafted to provide rules
for the states and its people to follow.43 Pennsylvania’s constitution, written on September 28,
36 Id. at 45.
37 Id.
38 See Walker, supra note 1, at 45 (explaining that mob violence was nothing new to America or Europe). Rioting
was used as a weapon to protest. Id. As the struggle for independence grew colonist turned to mob action to protest
against economic problems, conflicts between racial and religious groups, battles between political actions, and
collective protests against violations of public morality. Id. at 46.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 45.
41 Id. at 46.
42 Id.
43 See Walker, supra note 1, at 47 (discussing the shift from colonies to states where each drafted state constitutions
providing the opportunity to implement new concepts of criminal justice).
8
1776, called for a more humane criminal code.44 Pennsylvania was not the only state who felt
existing laws were too English and that it was most appropriate for the new nation to be governed
by different laws.45 After all, for freedom to advance the severity of the penal law had to
decrease.46 It was the egregious control of the British that caused the colonist to leave in the first
place.47
Shifts in the concept of punishment were sweeping across the country as the reform of societies
took place in early America after the Revolution. For example, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, opposed capital punishment.48 In 1787, Dr. Rush read his essay
in the home of Benjamin Franklin that elaborated on his belief that “the punishment of murder by
death, is contrary to reason, and to the order and happiness of society.”49 A religion which
commands forgiveness, and to do good to our enemies does not support, and never can, death as a
punishment for murder.50 Dr. Rush was from Philadelphia and one of the most important
advocates for criminal reform at that time.51
44 See id.
45 Walker, supra note 1, at 47.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 48 (explaining he was one of the most important advocates of reform during that time). A lot of Dr. Rush’s
ideologies were borrowed from Cesara Bonesana, known as Beccaria’s, who was the single most important
Enlightenment thinker on the subject of criminal justice. Id. at 37.
49 Walker, supra note 1, at 48.
50 See PHILLIP E. MACKEY, VOICES AGAINST DEATH: AMERICAN OPPOSITION TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT , 1787–1975
1–13 (Burt Franklin 1976).
51 Walker, supra note 1, at 48.
9
A year before Dr. Rush’s reading, in 1786, Pennsylvania reformed its criminal code.52 The
law defined the purpose of confinement as the correction and reform of offenders.53 The death
penalty was eliminated for crimes of burglary, robbery, and sodomy and instead substituted for a
max sentence of ten years imprisonment, plus forfeiture of all the offender’s property.54 Old
practices and forms of punishment were incorporated in the new laws (e.g. hard labor and public
humiliation).55 However, the old practices soon showed to be incompatible with the change in
values and morality. As a result, the concept of using imprisonment to accomplish the goal of
preventing crime and correcting criminal behavior flourished.56 This led to the development of
the modern prison and justice system.57
3. Development of the Modern ACJS
The modern criminal justice system came into its form between 1815 and 1900.58 It wasn’t
until the late nineteenth century that the idea of a systematic approach to social control came
52 Id.
53 See id. at 48 (describing the changes in punishment for serious and petty offenses). Although Walker states that
the purpose was to leave the impression on others, it was to also leave an impression on the offender. Id.
Rehabilitation is not meant to be a learning lesson for those harmed or third persons, it is meant for the person needing
the rehabilitation to learn from their mistakes and be successful at a second chance. 54 See id.
55 See Walker, supra note 1, at 49 (believing that making prisoners work in the streets of cities and towns, highways,
and other public works in front of the public would be so humiliating it would deter others from committing offenses).
People, however, began to complain about seeing prisoners out. Id. Taunting by citizens of prisoners began, which
led prisoners to responded in similar manners. Id. This led to the support for the concept of imprisonment to
accomplish the goal of correcting criminal behavior. Id.
56 See id. at 49 (discussing that because public humiliation of offenders was no longer useful urban residents wanted
a quiet and orderly environment). During the experimental learning phase for punishment of offenders, other people
were working to support the confining of all prisoners within institutions. Id.
57 See Walker, supra note 1, at 49 (increasing number of prisons began to rise in the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth century).
58 See id. at 55.
10
about.59 America was not the only country wrestling with major social issues while trying to
maintain control. Thus, the nineteenth century is said to be a period of international cross-
fertilization.60
Between 1820 and 1870 the police, prison, and first juvenile institutions developed in
America.61 These institutions were developed for the purpose of regulating, controlling, and
shaping human behavior—social control.62 Westward expansion, urbanization, immigration,
industrialization, and conflict over slavery remade the face of American society.63 All of these
issues caused disorder amongst the people and resulted in most people taking the law into their
own hands.64
As a result of chaos and disorder, the modern-style of police developed to keep people in
order.65 Scholars debate over the exact inception of modern day law enforcement. Regardless, its
inception can be traced back to the early–mid 1800s.66 A precursor to the consolidation of various
law enforcement agents, such as night watch, day watch, and constables, was the slave-patrol
system incorporated in the South.67 However, other methods of law enforcement began to have
59 See id.
60 See id. at 55 (explaining that America borrowed police ideas from England while Europe looked to America’s
prison system).
61 Id. at 56.
62 See id. at 56.
63 See Walker, supra note 1, at 56.
64 See id. at 57.
65 See id. at 59 (explaining that urban demand for order and tranquility led to the development of a modern-style
police).
66 See id. (discussing the issue of the exact date of the first American police department). Some historians believe
the departments establishment was in Bostin in 1838. Id. Others believe the structure of the establishment could be
seen between 1833 and 1854 in Philadelphia. Id.
67 See Walker, supra note 1, at 59.
11
an impact on America.68 Unfortunately, America policing in the nineteenth-century was an “era
of incivility, ignorance, brutality, [corruption], and graft.”69 Politics could be attributed to such
disorder.70 As well, a lack of education, poor health, and old age did not preclude employment as
a police officer, which too contributed to the failure of law enforcement to carry out its purpose.71
Due to the lack of professionalism seen within law enforcement, disrespect for the police grew
in the community.72 As a result of the lack of respect shown, combined with political conflic t,
police relied on brutality to carry out their authority.73 The lack of education, training, and
supervision aggravated the problem to where officials openly tolerated “curbside justice” of the
nightstick.74 Ultimately, corruption was seen as the main business for police in America.75
68 The London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829 provided a new approach to law enforcement. Id. at 60.
The new police system was a strategy to maintain social control by maintaining a continuous presence throughout
society for the purpose of preventing crime and disorder. Id. London’s approach was more proactive than reactive.
Id. London police represented themselves as representative of the national government. Id. at 64. Therefore, a
tradition of professional self-restraint developed within the London police. Id.
Whereas, America borrowed selectively from London, incorporating the strategy of crime prevention through
patrol but took a more democratic approach to establish standards of professionalism. Id. at 60. This caused the police
system to reflect the prevailing difference in political structures. Id. at 60–61.
69 Walker, supra note 1, at 61. Due to the lack of supervision over officers at this time, many patrol officers were
not carrying out their duties. Id. at 63. When it was raining or snowing, many officers spent their time in saloons,
barbershops, drinking and gossiping instead of conducting patrol on foot. Id. at 62.
70 See Walker, supra note 1, at 61.
71 See id. at 63. In fact, in 1872 Chicago’s Republican mayor appointed the first black police officer, and by 1984
had twenty–three black officers. Id.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 63
74 Id. at 63 (seeking to gain respect by using their billy clubs). A police reporter, Lincoln Steffens, remembers
seeing police bring in and kick out their bandaged, bloody prisoners —strikers and foreigners, thieves, and others of
the miserable friendless, troublesome poor. Walker, supra note 1, at 63. The brutality enacted by police was seen as
a form of delegated vigilantism that the middle class tolerated. Id.
75 See Walker, supra note 1, at 64.
12
As for prisons, in the 1820s prison emerged as a leading method for dealing with and punishing
unwanted individuals of society.76 The purpose for incarceration was to rehabilitate offenders; not
just juveniles but adults as well.77 Crime was no longer viewed as a sin deserving the harshest of
punishments. Instead crime was seen as a social phenomenon caused by harmful influences that
could be undone.78 Originally the idea was that prison would rehabilitate the offender “by creating
a better environment, separating the individual from harmful influences, ” and subjecting the
individual to a corrective prison discipline of “solitude, silence, hard work, and religious study.”79
America experienced another reform in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Scholars
such as Samuel Walker, refer to this movement as Progressivism.80 Progressivism viewed crimina l
justice as comprised of various institutions that have a common purpose.81 Reform was necessary
to “streamline this system to make it more effective.”82 Two perspectives on criminal justice were
prevalent: the crime-control model and the due-process model.83 Reform throughout this period
76 See id. at 65 (explaining the emergence of the theory of correctional treatment as an effective method to prevent
crime); see also DAVID ROTHMAN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE ASYLUM (Boston: Little Brown 1971) (holding the origins
of the prison has been found to lie in the institution of social welfare). Walker exp lains that the social-welfare and
criminal justice systems combined to maintain control over the poor, idle and lowest classes of persons. Walker,
supra note 1, at 16.
77 See id.
78 See id. at 66.
79 Walker, supra note 1, at 66. Religion had another important impact on prison reform throughout the nineteenth
century. Id. at 74. Prisoners were confined to their cells with only a Bible to read. Id. at 74
80 See Walker, supra note 1, at 127 (explaining that the Progressivism was not a single unified movement). Instead,
the underlying idea of progressivism was that American institutions had to be changed to adapt to the demands of a
growing urban-industrial society. Id.
81 Walker, supra note 1, at 127.
82 Id.
83 Walker, supra note 1, at 128 (explaining that the crime-control model emphasizes efficiency through a swift and
certain process, whereas the due-process model seeks to limit the powers of criminal justice officials and protect
individual’s liberties).
13
of the criminal justice system reflected the tension between the two models. As crime became an
important political issue, the search for a solution to crime became a focus of political groups.84
In 1906, at an annual meeting of the American Bar Association, Roscoe Pound—dean of the
University of Nebraska Law School—made a call to action for the legal system. Roscoe spoke
primarily about the civil law, however, Walker states his remarks apply equally to the
administration of criminal justice.85 Roscoe emphasized the efficiency perspective in maintaining
a legal system that can effectively carry out its obligation to suppress crime.86 The Anglo-
American legal tradition was centered around the individual.87 Modern society, however,
according to Roscoe demanded a collective approach, an emphasis on broader social goals.88
B. Rehabilitation and the ACJS
The notion of rehabilitation is fundamental to not only the prevention of crime, but the dignity
and hope of mankind. To rehabilitate in the context of criminology is to correct criminal behavior
through education and other means, however, rehabilitation is usually associated with prison.89
Prison, however, is not an effective nor efficient rehabilitative model. For example, effective
rehabilitative models encompass a plan of corrections that emphasize the use of treatment
84 Id.
85 Walker, supra note 1, at 129.
86 See Walker, supra note 1, at 129–130 (focusing on the future of the legal system and the courts ability to be swift
and certain agents of justice, whose decisions will be acquiesced in and respected by all).
87 See id. at 129 (explaining that the main idea behind the individual approach was to beat the law rather than arrive
at the truth).
88 See id. at 129.
89 JOHN CHAMPION, THE AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE KEY TERMS AND MAJOR COURT CASES 67
(Roxbury 2005) (emphasis added). Criminology means any systematic attempt to explain the causes or etiology of
crime. Id.
14
programs designed to reform offenders.90 America’s prison system at this time is not a program
designed to reform offenders.91 The prison system instead is an environment that breeds and
facilitates criminal behavior.92
Rehabilitation policy requires a correctional system with high concern for the individua l
offender and low concern for the community, using identification strategies to help the offender
mature.93 The rehabilitation era has been loosely understood to be between 1870–1920, beginning
with the funding of the Elmira Reformatory.94 Rehabilitative efforts continued until the early and
mid-twentieth century.95 The concept of rehabilitation hit its peak in the 1950s and 1960s as the
dominant penological paradigm.96 During the last quarter of the twentieth century, however,
rehabilitation was replaced with a more conservative position that has the drive to incapacitate and
incorporate a punitive policy.97
90 Id. at 216 (using programs that help develop useful skills, means of coping with life in mainstream society through
education and vocation).
91 See TRAVIS C. PRATT , ADDICTED TO INCARCERATION 66–67 (Sage 2009) (explaining how the prison experiment
is designed to try to control and prevent crime yet it has failed at both).
92 See MICHAEL J. LYNCH, BIG PRISONS BIG DREAMS: CRIME AND FAILURE OF AMERICA’S PENAL SYSTEM 179
(Rutgers University Press 2007) (summarizing data that shows long-term imprisonment does not cause a reduction in
crime, instead when imprisonment rose continually, crime was more likely to rise).
93 Id.
94 JOHN CHAMPION, THE AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE KEY TERMS AND MAJOR COURT CASES 216