Intro to Criminal Justice Unit 9/10 July,2011

Unit 9 Graded items: 1.Seminar 2.Final Essay Paper 3.Discussion CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 2

First Assignments! Nothing after May 10! Double check ME!!! Go back and get points (2/3 posts) Re-do tests, not projects * Paper??

Next Week Course ends – JULY 26, 2011 Many assignments due – can still turn them in Unit 10 - Quiz

Unit 9 Final Essay Paper The US correctional system can serve two specific functions in relation to criminal offenders. First, it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender and making the offender pay for his/her crimes. Second, it can serve as a means to rehabilitating the offender and preparing him/her for successful reentry into society. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 5

Unit 9 paper cont. Assignment Write a 3-page paper that answers all 3 of the following questions: 1.How does our correctional system punish offenders? 2.How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? 3.Which method is more effective in reducing crime, punishment or rehabilitation? Explain your choice. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 6

Unit 9 sources You are required to use at least 2 references for this paper. One reference can be your text from this class and the other reference should come from the Kaplan library. Be sure to list your sources on your reference page. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 7

Unit 9 paper cont. Your paper must follow this format: Page 1 – Cover page Pages 2, 3 and 4 – Body of text Page 5 – Reference page Please remember to write a full 3 pages for your body of text. Your paper should be written in Times New Roman size 12 font and double spaced. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 8

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 9

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 10

In -Text: …. (Smith & Wesson, 2002). Smith and Wesson (2002) found that … Smith, D.W., & Wesson, T. E. (2002). Gun shots at the Alamo. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press. Examples Note: (most examples adapted from Perrin, 2004)

 Appears on page by itself  Word “References” centered at top  Alphabetize- beginning with last name  Last name, initials. (date). Title  Title specifics ◦ Articles: only 1 st word of title capitalized, (not italicized)  Name of periodical/magazine (each word capitalized & italicized), volume #, (italicized), then page # of article (no Italics). Example follows: ◦ Nussbaum, J.F., & Bettini, L.M. (1994). Shared stories of the ◦ grandparent-grandchild relationship. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 39, ◦ Books: only 1 st word of title capitalized, title is italicized, followed by major city of publication: publisher (example: ◦ Kent, C.W., & Ray, G.A. (1999). How communities share resources: Ways to give back. New York: McGraw Hill.  Special situations addressed in guide ◦ no author, association publications, etc. Reference List

 Avoid, only use if essential for clarity  Even if not quoting, you must cite  Quotations must have the page number attached  You must quote exactly  Short quotes – less than 40 words, put in quotation marks, followed by the in text cite and the page number  Long quotes – more than 40 words, must be indented in a block format, with no quotation marks also cited with page number(s).  Do not need to repeat names if they appear in the text. Quotations

??????????????????? Any questions concerning the Final Essay??? CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 14

Seminar Topics Death Penalty Issues Juvenile Justice Prison

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 16 Prisons  A prison is a state or federal confinement facility that has custodial authority over adults sentenced to confinement.  The use of prisons as a place to serve punishment is a relatively new way to handle offenders.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 17 Early Punishments  Types of early punishments:  Flogging  Mutilation  Branding  Public humiliation  Workhouses  Exile

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 18 The Penitentiary Era  Philadelphia Penitentiary begun by Quakers for humane treatment of offenders.  Rehabilitation through penance (solitary confinement and Bible study).  Known as the “Pennsylvania System.”

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 19 The Mass Prison Era  Auburn Prison (New York) featured group workshops and silence enforced by whipping and hard labor.  This Auburn System was the primary competitor to the Pennsylvania System.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 20 The Reformatory Era 1876 — 1890  Based on the use of the indeterminate sentence.  Believed in the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for youthful offenders.  Elmira Reformatory attempted reform rather than punishment.  A system of graded stages in educational, behavioral and other goals gave way to the system of “parole.”  Ultimately considered a failure, since recidivism was still a problem.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 21 The Industrial Era  Prisoners used for cheap labor.  Industrial production in the North; agriculture in the South.  Six systems of inmate labor: contract system, piece-price system, lease system, public account system, state-use system, and public works system.  Labor unions complained that they could not compete.  The passage of the Hawes-Cooper Act and Ashurst-Sumners Act limited inmate labor.  Some prison industries exist today.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 22 The Punitive Era  Characterized by belief that prisoners owed a debt to society.  Custody and institutional security the central values.  Few innovations.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 23 The Community-Based Era  Based on premise that rehabilitation cannot occur in isolation from the real world.  Prisons considered dehumanizing.  Led to innovations in the use of volunteers and the extension of inmate privileges.  Programs include: Half-way houses Work-release Study-release

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 24 The Warehousing Era  Public and judicial disapproval of release programs and recidivism led to longer sentences with fewer releases.  Nothing works doctrine.  Prison overcrowding became widespread.  Greater emphasis on incarcerating non-violent drug offenders.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 25 U.S. Prison Population: Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 26 The “Just Deserts” Era present  Based on the justice model.  Emphasis on individual responsibility and punishment.  Imprisonment is a proper consequence of criminal and irresponsible behavior.  Chain gangs, “three-strikes,” and reduced parole.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 27 Prisons Today: Numbers and Types of Prisons Approximately  1,325 state prisons  84 federal prisons  482 state and federal prisoners per 100,000 population On January 1, 2004, state and federal prisons held 1,461,191 inmates. Slightly more than 6.9% of those imprisoned were women.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 28 Prisons Today: Sentences In state prisons:  49% are violent criminals  19% are property criminals  20% drug law violators In federal prisons:  61% are drug law violators

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 29 There are three security levels: 1.Maximum 2.Medium 3.Minimum Security Levels in State Prison Systems

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 30 Most maximum security institutions tend to be massive old buildings with a large inmate population, including all death row inmates. They provide a high level of security with:  High fences/walls of concrete  Several barriers between living area  Secure cells  Armed guards  Gun towers Maximum Security

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 31 Medium security prisons are similar in design to maximum security facilities; however, they:  Usually have more windows.  Tend to have barbed wire fences instead of large stone walls.  Sometimes use dormitory style housing. Medium Security

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 32 Medium security prisons allow prisoners more freedom, such as:  Associating with other prisoners  Going to the prison yard or exercise room  Visiting the library  Showering and using bathroom facilities with less supervision An important security tool is the count.  The process of counting inmates during the course of a day.  Times are random, and all business stops until the count is verified. Medium Security

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 33 In minimum security prisons:  Housing tends to be dormitory style.  Prisoners usually have freedom of movement within the facility.  Work is done under general supervision only.  Guards are unarmed, and gun towers do not exist.  Fences, if they exist, are low and sometimes unlocked.  “Counts” are usually not taken.  Prisoners are sometimes allowed to wear their own clothes. Minimum Security

Death Penalty 34

The Death Penalty 35 Capital punishment means the death penalty. It is the most extreme of all possible sanctions and is reserved only for especially repugnant crimes (known as capital offenses). Scmalleger, 2007

The Extent of Death Penalty Statutes 36 Capital punishment is a sentencing option is 38 states and the federal government.  States vary considerably with regard to the number of death sentences given and the number of executions.  Methods of imposing death vary by state. Most use legal injection. Electrocution, hanging, gas chamber, and firing squad are still on the books as a option in at least one state. Scmalleger, 2007

U.S. Executions by State Scmalleger, 2007

Habeas Corpus Review 38 The average time before execution is 10 years and 11 months. Most of the delay is due to appeals.  All death penalty cases get one automatic appeal.  Beyond that, inmates can receive more appeal by filing writs of habeas corpus,  an order directing anyone holding a prisoner to bring him before a judicial officer to determine the lawfulness of the imprisonment. Scmalleger, 2007

Limiting Appeals 39 In a move to reduce delays in executions, the U.S. Supreme Court:  Limited the number of appeals (McCleskey v. Zandt, 1991 & Coleman v. Thompson, 1991).  Defined standards for further appeals from death row inmates (Schlup v. Delo, 1995)

Abolitionist and Retentionist Positions on Capital Punishment Arguments for Retention  Revenge—Only after execution can survivors begin to heal psychologically  Just desserts—Some people deserve to die for what they did  Protection—Once executed, the person cannot commit another crime Arguments for Abolition  Has been used on innocent people and may be again  Not an effective deterrent  Imposition is arbitrary and discriminatory  Far too expensive  Reduces society to the level of the criminal CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 9E PRENTICE HALL By Frank Schmalleger ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 40

The Courts and the Death Penalty U.S. Supreme Court defined cruel and unusual methods of execution in In re Kemmler (1890): “Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution.” 41 Scmalleger, 2007

Furman v. Georgia (1972) “evolving standard of decency” The Court invalidated Georgia’s death penalty statute on the basis that it allowed a jury unguided discretion in the imposition of a capital sentence.  Georgia, and states with similar statutes,  worked quickly to modify their procedures. 42 Scmalleger, 2007

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) The Court upheld the two-step procedure requirements of Georgia’s new capital punishment law as necessary for ensuring the separation of the highly personal information needed in a sentencing decision from the kinds of information reasonably permissible in a jury trial. 43 Scmalleger, 2007

Recent Court Challenges Most recent appeals challenge state’s capital punishment laws and tend to focus on the procedures in sentencing decisions. Still, most U.S. Supreme Court justices believe in that the “death sentence” is fundamentally constitutional. It is the means of execution and the population of those to be executed (like age and mental inability) that are coming to be questioned. 44 Scmalleger, 2007

The Future of the Death Penalty  There is little common ground between death penalty advocates & opponents.  The future of the death penalty likely rests with state legislatures. 45 Scmalleger, 2007

Sell v. U.S. (2003) An important government issue must be at stake and only a case by case inquiry can determine whether the government's interest is mitigated by the possibility of a long civil commitment for the treatment of the mental illness or by the fact that long periods of confinement have already been served, as this would be subtracted from any criminal sentence. There must be a substantial probability that the medication will enable the defendant to become competent without substantial undermining side effects. The medication must be necessary to restore the defendant's competency, with no alternative, less intrusive procedures available that would produce the same results. Scmalleger, 2007

Juvenile Justice Police Officer Ticket  Juvenile Court My personal view Traffic Tickets – Result Cruelty to Children Felony Cases  Reduced Sentence Domestic Cases  Mediation

Overview of the 3 main cases In re Gault (1967) More on details of case later Procedural fairness to juveniles in juvenile court Parens Patriae – the child was entitled more to custody than to liberty Gault delivered safeguards – including advanced notice of charges, a fair/impartial hearing, assistance of counsel, and opportunity to confront witnesses, and priv. against self- incrimination.

Fundamental Fairness Doctrine Case Law Evaluation Continues In Re Winship (1970) raised the standard in proceedings to “beyond a reasonable doubt” vs “preponderance of the evidence” Breed v. Jones (1975) Double Jeopardy – Adult vs. Juvenile Court

Setback in progress? McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) the Constitution does not require a jury trial in juvenile court proceedings Judge can be finder of fact in lieu of a jury “Gault, Winship, and McKeiver precipitated a procedural revolution in the juvenile court system” (p.83).

Researchers are still critical The shift from “needs” of the child to “deeds” committed focuses on criminal prosecutions like adult courts. This is a convergence of “substantive” and “procedural” justice. Some quote Kent v. U.S. (1966): “the child receives the worst of both worlds: the child gets neither the protections of an adult nor the care and treatment postulated for children.”

In re Gault, 387 US 1, (1967) Gerald Gault made some lewd phone calls After a hearing soon after being taken into custody, he was ordered to a State Industrial School until he reached adulthood. No notice was given to parents that he was in custody. A petition for detainment was filed on the day of the hearing and was not presented to Gault or his parents The complainant of the lewd calls was not present at the hearing either.

Gault 2 No sworn testimony Officer testified that Gault admitted to making the calls (outside the presence of his parents). No Miranda – no notification of right to counsel, self-incrimination Superior Court dismissed habeas corpus petition by parents. Argument: that committal by proceeding requires due process and fair treatment

Decision in Gault Reversed; Juvenile proceedings must have fundamental due process procedures 1. written notice of charges 2. notification of right of counsel prior to hearing 3. application of the constitutional privilege of self-incrimination 4. a determination of delinquency by sworn testimony, which can be subjected to cross-examination

In Re Winship, 397 US 358, (1970) 12 year old boy stole money NY family court judge adjudicated based on the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” instead of “reasonable doubt” standard Boy was subject to confinement based on this standard of guilt. The case was affirmed by NY Supreme Court

Decision The reasonable doubt standard was founded on the value that it is far worse to convict and innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. Due process clause protects an accused in a criminal prosecution to the standard of “reasonable doubt”. Although juvenile proceedings don’t have to be structurally similar to adult courts, the finder of fact still has to used this standard.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, (1971) From PA and NC, a group of juvenile proceedings were evaluated. PA: 15 and 16 year old boys, charged with both felonies and misdemeanors, requested a jury trial and were denied. NC: A group of juveniles also requested a jury trial (public was excluded in some cases) but were also denied in all cases. Supreme Courts in both states affirmed the decision in lower courts

McKeiver v. PA 2 Due process clause and fundamental fairness require some protections, but they do not require a jury trial in a juvenile proceeding. The presence of a jury trial would create an adversarial proceeding, which would slow down and take away from the curative, rehabilitative model that juvenile courts are supposed to have. 1 Justice affirmed, but would reverse if state’s didn’t allow public-view trials.

If Time Permits... Questions regarding employment Backgrounds Hiring

It’s been great to have you...