The Criminal Justice Systems

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

that lead to criminal behaviour. Discuss.

Introduction

Answering the question raised, in my opinion, one has to deal with three adjoining aspects of the problem. The first one is the roots of crime, i.e. what are the causes of this social issue (such as economic incl.poverty and unemployment, gender-specific or sectarian violence, white-collar crime etc); then the causes of criminal behavior; and effectiveness of the criminal justice system to deal with crime and to reduce crime rate by punishing criminals.

Chapter 1 The roots of crime

Crime as any social disorder may be influenced by a variety of causes and factors. Some of them, such as cultural issues(family values, religion etc), system (educational, political, law-enforcement etc), economy etc. may cause potential criminal activities of an individual.

There are various theories to the roots of crime, such as biological, psychological, sociological, economic, cultural and anthropological, etc (see Akers and Sellers).

Biological theories of crime (Lombroso; Sheldon) suggest that the following factors may serve as major causes of crime: genetic deficiencies (e.g. criminal twins such as Kray brothers, or parental criminality); gender or age issues; poor nutrition and diet in the childhood; head injuries in the childhood which influences motoric skills; and problems at birth (asphyxia and the like).

Psychological factors as roots of crime (Alexander and Healy; Burtt; Wortley) deal mostly with formation of a criminal in the childhood period, such as aggressive or impulsive behavior; hyperactivity; sensation-seeking attitude; problem behaviour syndrome; low verbal intelligence ; learning disabilities; Antisocial Personality Disorder (Hare) and the like.

Family-related factors often include such issues as poor parenting (parental attachment/rejection; consistent/inconsistent family discipline; lack of adequate supervision/monitoring; parental neglect

and abuse); and "broken" home (i.e. parents never married or divorced). It has been mentioned that family disruption and large percentage of female based households are primary causes of crime (Stein).

Neighbourhood and communities criminal environment factor, e.g. criminal peers factor, often include the fact that generally delinquents/criminals have similar peers; and that criminality was learned from others through associations i.e. "hanging out with the wrong crowd". Consequently, it has been suggested (Shader) that at the community level, poverty leads to social disorganization. This lack of common values and inability to maintain social and community controls, and that the effect of poverty and absense of jobs may influence population mobility and cause rapid residential turnover in the community, thus becoming a serious factor in shaping criminal environment in a given neighbourhood.

There exist a conjunction line withregard positive relationship between increase in violent crimes and residential instability (Bogges and Hipp). There is an evidence that population density and structure may influence increase in crime rate, and may further trigger development of criminal behaviour (Harries). It has been suggested that urbanization leads to anonymity and social alienation and hence to increase in violent crime (Browning et al.).

Some researchers further state that factors that facilitate this process are social isolation and withdrawal (Leo and Goff); decline and deterioration in number of business establishments (Cohen and Felson);adverse changes in population quality sttructure (Rosich), loss of stable residents (Shapiro and Hassett). It has been generally suggested that crime undermines economic, political, cultural, social, and civil development of a society (UNODC).

There is also a relationship between school performance and offending (Savage; Farringdon and Loeber). This view is supported by the fact that offenders (especially juvenile offenders) have poor academic achievement at schools (Saraivaa et al.); they often fail grades, are truant or drop out early (Wasserman et al.); they do not participate in school activities in contrast to those attending more successful educational establishments . To add to the schooling problem, in many countries current policies require compulsory school attendance which brings such consequences as frequent dropouts, dilution of curricular options, forcing to stay in school those who would have dropped out and gone to work or army or otherwise socialize with positive attitudes prevailing. To add insult to injury, there is also weakening of school/teacher authority and breakdown of informal controls which often results infurther delinquent behaviour such as bullying (Farrington).

As a result of that, there is a problem of weak social control which in turn results in labelling effects (Farrigton and Murray), primary and secondary deviance (Lemert), and deinstitutionalization (Nasrallah ).

Chapter 2 Causes of criminal behaviour

Sociology of crime views crime as predominantly deviant behaviour that violates established norms  – i.e. a set of cultural, religious and other standards prescribing how individuals are expected or deemed to behave in normal circumstances (Deflem). The theories withregard various causes of criminal behavior have been debated since in the late 19th - early 20th centuries when the role of physiology and genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph, 2001), linking criminal behaviors to such factors as skin color or skull size . In USSR and other Soviet bloc countries , criminologists pointed out the capitalist roots of criminal behaviour thus connecting the wealth and crime. Modern models are focussing on various factors including demographic and environmental which include age differences , gender-specific, and socio-economic issues and integrate multiple models in order to understand what causes criminal behaviour (Morley & Hall, 2003).

Age issue is often a significant factor of criminal behavior. Most first offenders start young, often in their early teens . Criminal activity decreases with age (Farrington) as a result of other responsibilities prevailing, such as family or job. However not all crimes can fit this pattern,as for example fraud and other white-collar crimes are usually committed by older persons .

Then there also is a breakdown along gender lines (Steffensmeier and Allan).

Historically and sociologically, male offenders are more likely to participate in criminal activities (Emerson Dobash et al.). This gender break is quite universal: women are less likely than men to commit criminal acts (Nagel and Hagan). This may be explained by hormonal differences, i.e. under influence of a testosterone as a hormone causing more violent behavior (Krienert). Such aspects of male social behavior as 'machoism' may also cause this (Flowers), i.e. the need to appear "stronger" which may bring to a conclusion to resort to violence in order to prove it (Walklate).

On the other hand, there are crimes that are usually linked to women. However, female criminal activity is not limited to only a few areas. Females are involved in a wide crosssection of crime, such as passion crimes or prostitution, fraud or motoring offences (Mallicoat).

Another factor which influences the likelihood of criminal behavior is the geography, i.e. the neighborhood where an individual lives grows up (Cohen). Although studies indicate a more frequent occurrence of crime among lower economic status areas (Boggs), white collar individuals tend not less likely to demonstrate criminal behavior, but of a different scope and nature (Geis).

Chapter 3 Effectiveness of the criminal justice system

Traditionally, measuring and evaluating the efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness are percieved as to show how functional the criminal system is (Smith). Efficiency, in this system of coordinates, means applying available financial and organizational resources to to improve public safety (Gaes et al.). Effectiveness means carrying out criminal justice system activities taking into account proportionality, equity, and securing basic human rights.

There are different ways in different jurisdictions of ensuring that their respective criminal justice systems are effective. Some countries have official criminal justice inspectorates or national councils equipped with audit functions; others have established informal mechanisms for ensuring human rights, such as Ombudspersons.

Some researchers use traditional way measuring effectiveness and what output measures to use, e.g. public confidence in criminal justice agencies, public perceptions of criminal justice system, public fear of crime; proportion of taxes/national expenditure going to justice agencies; crime rate;

proportion of the population who are criminals; and recidivism rate.

In most western democracies promoting public confidence in criminal justice system is both a policy priority and critical policy issue, therefore governments are under pressure to make the system more accountable and transparent, by conducting public opinion surveys on a regular basis in order to measure public level of confidence (Roberts). The level of such confidence varies from country to country and is largely dependent on several factors, e.g. economic conditions incl.poverty rate, culture, religion, gender and the like. In some countries the public expresses little confidence in the justice system, in others more people are positive than are negative. In western democracies confidence levels in criminal justice are generally higher than in less developed countries, as for example in Ukraine where criminal justice system does not meet democratic standards, and its professional capability is at best low, both withregard deterrence as well as prevention.  Further, corruption is a tremendous problem in such countries – e.g. the Ukrainian judiciary is one of the most corrupt in the world (Transparency International, 2010); poor working conditions,low salaries, equipment shortages, inadequate training contribute greatly to systemic general ineffectiveness of criminal justice system in emerging democracies. 

Public has less confidence in the justice system than in other public institutions, and the police has most, and the prison system - the least amount of public confidence (Stein). Generally speaking, public perceives law enforcement as a whole as being insufficiently rigorous, and is particularly dissatisfied with certain features such as the courts and corrections.

This downturn in confidence particularly in courts, judges and corrections , implied a series of high profile justice policy shifts in an attempt to improve the system including a number of reforms and investigations in order to improve public confidence in it. Low level of public confidence results in disrespect with those responsible for justice administration (Indermaur and Roberts).

Public image of criminal justice system vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction due to factors mentioned above. However, there are some generic conclusions one may draw from it, namely that people rely extensively on governments for protection against crime, i.e. citizens expect protection from the police and courts, and expect certainty of punishment (Beccaria). Another generic conslusion is that public beliefs in relation to crime and punishment in general are out of step with reality (Duffy et al.) Approximately from mid-1950ies, public perceptions of criminal justice system have been formed through the media (especially TV) showing not the actual or real activities of the system , but rather how the public imagine that it works, whether this perception is accurate or not (McNeely). Such areas of poor or distorted public knowledge include information on legal processes, rights, and procedures; the legitimacy of the legal system; effectiveness, honesty, or repressiveness of the law enforcement (portrayal of the criminal justice system as corrupt, biased, or worthy of support.

Most people experience fear of crime rather than an actual criminal victimization, therefore fear of crime (or fear of victimization) may include various emotional states, attitudes, or perceptions (Warr 2000).

As a rule, taxpayers fund the costs of operations of criminal justice system which involve:

Law enforcement (incl. police);

Courts (incl. prosecution, defense, judges, and administration);

Corrections (incl. prisons, probation, and parole);

Justice-related programs, including:

Pre-trial services,

Programs alternative to incarceration,

Inmate education and training, and

Society re-entry services.

However, there is an opinion that increased expenditure on criminal justice is more correlated with political and ideological objectives than with feasible criminal justice outcomes (Spencer).

The crime statistics measures the crime rate in societies. Most researchers show however that these measurements are likely to be inaccurate given the nature of crime. Various methods for measuring crime rate exist, including data held by law enforcement, various surveys and records, (although some offences may be unreported). However surveys rarely include all types of crime and are not always useful for crime prevention (Levitt). Taking into account that laws may vary in different countries, comparing crime rate can be difficult between jurisdictions.

Broadly speaking, a criminal record is any type of documentation which records and individual's confrontation with the law. This statistics serves various purposes, e.g. people found guilty of certain crimes may be prevented from performing certain social tasks (e.g. sexual offenders – from taking any job dealing with monors, or generally people with criminal record – from taking any job related to security or justice, etc.). However, each country has its own perception of what individual acts may be deemed as criminal, depending on cultural or religious traditions; also, many former convicts (especially political prisoners) became prominent statesmen in their respective countries – e.g. Ben Gurion, Mandela, Walesa, Havel, Yanukovich)

Many studies have shown a positive correlation between attendance of rehabilitation programs and recidivism (Song and Lieb). For example, recidivism rates for released prisoners in the US is higher compared with the UK (BBC) due to the fact that in the UK criminal justice policy is mostly focused on rehabilitation, and in the US - on punishment and deterrence.

It has been suggested that reentering society for offenders could bring a number of challenges and obstacles which may lead to recidivism rates (Freeman). Various researchers also noted that if prisoners may face loss of civil rights or being shunned by the communities, it may further lead to further alienation, isolation and re-offending (Calabrese and Adams; Taylor). Among the major causes of recidivism are the difficulty to find a job (Bierens and Carvalho), renting an apartment (Linney) or getting an education (Walters).

Imprisonment is regarded as a negative social experience that may trigger further involvement in illegal activities. Prisons do not reduce recidivism, quite to the contrary - incarceration has a criminogenic effect, and the use of custodial sanctions makes society less, not more, safe (Cullen et al).

Conclusion

The short answer to the question is that the criminal justice system is unlikely to provide good solutions to the kinds of problems that lead to criminal behaviour. The resulting solution is that the underlying causes of crime could be dealt with through preventative measures, such as rehabilitation of offenders (Stemen). Such suggestion comes from the theoretical proposition that criminal justice system deals only with the symptoms of crime, whereas criminal prevention - with the root causes of crime. Criminological studies suggest that increases in imprisonment will produce only a modest reduction in crime. Mass incarceration will not reduce crime nor create more public safety (Jacobson).

It appears that most of traditional efficiency measurement tools within criminal justice system are oriented towards meeting their target objectives and goals set by respective civil service or indeed government. They are mostly focusing on such measures of good criminal justice system performance as recidivism and conviction rates (Mahoney). There has been some discussion about the real impact of such mechanisms long percieved as outdated. It has been suggested that such discussion has long been overdue and a comprehensive study is needed, giving more credit to informal mechanisms vs formal ones (Lewis).

The current criminal justice system system is focused on the deterrence, including arrest and incarceration(Gaynes et al.), and largely ignores such issues as rehabilitation and community re-entry (Andrews and Bonta). In most jurisdictions, if re-entry, release or transition planning exists at all, it begins only few weeks before release from correctional facility ( Arment).

There exist growing skepticism among both the general public and scholars about the efficiency of imposing and promoting the rule of law within both national and international domains.

The concept of crime is far more complex as changes in political, economic, psychological and social, conditions may influence formal definitions of crime and law-enforcement and penal responses from within the society (Smartt ). With such shifts in cultural criteria and change of the political environment, society may criminalise or in turn decriminalise certain types of behaviour (Husak), which may as a result affects such underlying issues as crime rate, or influence the allocation of financial and human resources for criminal justice system (Davies et al.), and result in changes of public opinion.

Changes in the way how data on crime are collected, may affect the public perceptions of crime (O'Connor). Such adjustments into collection of criminal data may influence attitudes and methods which the governments should use in order to bring positive changes into criminal justice system (Maguire et al.). This leads to a conclusion that behaviour of an individual can be controlled and influenced without having to apply criminal justice system control tools (UNODC).

There are multiple and numerous theories on how to prevent criminal behaviour (Cassel and Bernstein) without applying such measures as incarceration. Current social and criminology theories put an emphasis on providing potential offenders with better economic opportunities and give them an alternative to criminal behaviour, such as employment or education, just making them less likely to engage in criminal activities (Mackey and Levan). Withregard first-time offenders, studies show that education and rehabilitation reduce the chances that they will revert to crime once released from prison (National Audit Office ).

There are several plausible alternatives which may include maintaining the status-quo of current trends without additional intervention (McDonald and Finn); or increasing the number and quality of pre-release policies within prisons, targeting e.g. factors associated with drugs incl. addiction treatment or education programs and vocational training (Taxman et al.); or increasing the influence of community-based institutions that provide post-release or society reentry services ( Solomon et al.). The possibilities may vary and include informal or voluntary bodies; ensuring quality control over criminal justice system by creating government-funded review body; or involve supra-national agencies/organizations to monitor the system.

However there are some obstacles to it as such policy may face significant opposition from both the civil service bureaucracy opposing chaange, as well as partisan groups who may argue that providing rehabilitation and educational services for ex-offenders is considered as privileges, which many law-abiding individuals don’t have access to.

There is a clear need for an international discussion of criminology scholars on what processes exist throughout Europe to evaluate ability of criminal justice system to provide good solutions to the kinds of problems that lead to criminal behaviour.