Crime prevention remains a highly contested subject in criminal justice. Various policies have been tested over the years with several achieving very little to curb crime. ‘Get tough’ policies are among the policies scoring poorly in crime prevention. According to Fournier-Ruggles (2011), ‘get tough’ policies are not supported statistically in Canada. Similar studies have revealed that the policies defy the goal of criminal justice and end up incarcerating a huge section of the population. Mass incarceration is unsustainable to the government. Furthermore, these policies have failed to deter crime considering that they were rolled out to dissuade potential criminals from engaging in crime. The policies which started to be rolled out in 1980s need to be phased out to pave way for more effective ones. “Get tough” policies in criminal justice force a huge section of the population to solely depend on public services as they move in and out of correctional facilities, instead of actively contributing towards economic development.
Historical Perspective
It would be wrong to conclude that there is a single way that can be implemented to curb crime. A muddling-through approach has been deployed over the years to pick what works and discard the failing policies. The criminal justice system keeps reforming its approach based on the statistical justification and emergence of evidence-based strategies that are more efficient. In the last three decades, the American criminal justice system witnessed a surging number of incarcerated individuals. The high number coincided with the period when the ‘get tough’ policies were rolled out. Therefore, the government was forced to increase its budget as more citizens were forced to depend on public services and resources. According to Gordon (1989), ‘get-tough’ policies started being rolled out in late 1960s. The policies were rolled out to curb crimes including drug trafficking, homicide and many others. Gordon (1989) argued that these policies were characterized by a revised sentencing policy. Narrow defendants’ rights were adopted as limited freedom was allowed on the side of the offenders. Furthermore, the criminal justice was funded heavily as a way of providing resources to sustain the program. In the short-term, there was a huge increase in incarceration rates, prison and jail overcrowding (Gordon, 1989). The financial burden was shifted to the government to cater for the surging prison population. Gordon (1989) noted that between 1970 and 1985, adult incarceration rate soared from ninety six state and federal prisoners per one hundred thousand citizens to two hundred and one. That is more than double the rate of incarceration. Prisons were overcrowded leading to more challenges which will be explored in the paper.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A succinct analysis of the policy reveals that some of the major changes witnessed during this period included new restrictions on parole release. Previously, there was free exercise of judicial discretion. The new changes significantly restricted free exercise of judicial discretion with the new changes limiting the freedom of the judge. A parole-board was also rolled out in most cases to identify the cases as they presented and offer guidance. As a result, the judicial system was overwhelmed by a surging number of appeals as more convicts felt that their cases were not handled professionally. Before ‘get-tough- policies were rolled out, the criminal justice system had witnessed a period of liberalization. The laws used were redefined to ensure that the barbarism witnessed previously was no longer present. The criminal justice system was also struggling to present itself as a fair and equal body that granted justice to all citizens regardless of their racial differences. Get-tough policies watered the efforts made previously to liberalize the criminal justice system.
Why the Policies Failed: Results of the Policy
Prisons were overcrowded within a short period after the policies were rolled out in late 1960s. The statistics cited above show that the state and federal incarceration rate rose from 91 per 100,000 individuals to 201 (Gordon, 1989). The government had not anticipated a scenario where it would be forced to expand its prison facilities and human resources to cater for the huge population. As a result, other statistics such as death in custody rose. The huge number of incarcerated individuals contained in the available facilities could not be contained without risking their health. According to Crowley (2013) global austerity efforts have forced policy makers to avoid investing in programs that carry a significant or even low risk of failure. In this case, policy makers opted for a policy that had a huge risk of failure. They would have anticipated a scenario where the prisons would be overcrowded since citizens would be incarcerated due to petty crime.
Get-tough policies in crime were motivated by the view that citizens would be dissuaded engaging in crime if there were tough policies acting on offenders. According to Hogeveen (2005) tougher justice legislation was needed to ensure that the liberties enjoyed by citizens were not misused. Cloud (2003) presented the case of Polly Klaas, a 12-year old girl who was murdered and the father later realized that the killer was on parole. The killer had attacked children in the past. Marc, the daughter’s father felt that parole was not a fair strategy in the quest for justice considering that the offender would find his way back into the society and commit more felonies. The view is supported by Hogeveen (2005) who argued that while rolling out get-tough on crime policies in Canada, the idea was to discourage offenders and ensure that those found culpable were forced to serve tough sentences. By serving long and tough sentences, their chances of engaging in crime later on were also reduced.
Criminological Theories
Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory
The deterrence and rational choice theory has three major components or elements. These include severity, certainty and celerity. The main goal is to make sure that the public understands the severity of the consequences associated with crime. Certainty comes into play when the public is supposed to be dissuaded from committing crime. To add on get-tough policies on crime, the government enacted stop-and-search measures so that drug traffickers could be identified and legal measures taken to punish them. However, the results obtained after rolling out the get-tough policies revealed limited deterrence. Crime rate did not reduce over the years. The factors contributing to crime were therefore shallowly understood or were too dynamic to be managed using the policy. The policies were also problematic. The powers given to police officers were often abused. Many innocent citizens were wrongly convicted due to the limited attention given to the collection of evidence and the prosecution.
The policies allowed police officers to ignore the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by citizens. The movement starting in late 1960s and gaining pace in 1970s led to more drug arrests and increased juvenile incarceration. While exploring the results, one can explore the effects of increased juvenile incarceration independently. Juveniles are supposed to be guided and allowed back in the society to pursue important goals in their lives. After get-tough policies came to effect, majority of juvenile offenders were denied a chance to proceed with their education. With their prospects in education dwindling, they often found themselves back in prison as they engaged in crime to make ends meet. Hogeveen (2005) argued that by late 1990s, policy makers had already concluded that the policy was ineffective. The major concern was on juvenile justice since majority of them were missing out when denied a chance to proceed with their education. Correctional facilities serve five major roles i.e. restoration, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and deterrence. Any policy proposed in crime management should pass through the five lenses. Furthermore, when proposing a policy, the government should consider the ripple effects on other factors such as resource mobilization. Get-tough on crime policies over-focused on incapacitation instead of having a balanced approach that rehabilitated offenders to fit in the society without harming the rest of the population. According to Wortley & Sidebottom (2017) the rational choice theory is based on the factors determining decision-making among humans. Decisions are motivated by the reward or punishment that comes with them. Considering that crime rate did not reduce with get-tough crime policies, the rational choice theory could not be used with exclusivity to describe factors leading to crime. Alternatively, there were many other factors that led people to crime and not just the reward or punishment associated with it. For instance, in drug trafficking, an individual could weigh the threat of ending prison against the need to make a living from the business. Such a person may end up engaging in crime as a survival mechanism.
Social Control Theory
The social control theory holds the position that people are always in a position to commit crime without prior training or motivation. This theory can be used to describe the failure of get-tough policies on crime. If people engage in crime without prior training or motivation, then it means that they can hardly be discouraged by the consequences that come from their activities. For instance, a serial killer may not be fearful of the consequences that come with such behavior. They derive their satisfaction from a force higher than the motivation that comes with engagement in crime. The social control theory proposes that the ties a person has with different social groups such as family, school or church play a major role to deter them from committing crime. A person may be hesitant to commit a crime if they feel they will hurt a person they love. If there are weak bonds existing between the individual and the society, they may engage in crime easily. For instance, if a child is brought up in an abusive family where they are physically abused, they may develop a poor relationship with the guardian, or parent. In such a case, the chances of revenging or committing a crime against other people in the society are high. Get-tough policies on crime failed since they failed to appreciate such a theory that describes other causes of crime other than motivation based on punishment.
Self-Control Theory
The theory is also known as the general theory of crime. The theory was developed by Gottfredson & Hirschi in 1990. The theory posits that humans often try to avoid pain as a consequence of their actions. This kind of motivation can be used to deter crime. The theory can be applied in criminal justice to fulfill the deterrence goal of criminal justice. When rolling out the get-tough policies, the government wanted to deter crime by creating a harsh system where the public understood the punishment associated with their course of action. However, the policies were enacted at a time when the U.S. society was undergoing major changes and restructuring. By 1990s when the social-control theory was proposed, the get-tough policies had flopped. The approach failed since policy makers did not balance the five goals of a criminal justice system.
References
Cloud, J. (2003). A get-tough policy that failed. Time. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,19229,00.html
Crowley D. M. (2013). Building Efficient Crime Prevention Strategies: Considering the Economics of Investing in Human Development. Criminology & public policy , 12 (2), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12041
Fournier-Rugles, L. (2011). The cost of getting tough on crime: Isn’t prevention the policy answer? Journal of Public Policy, Administration and Law, 2, 19-28.
Gordon, D. R. (1989). The Topography Of Criminal Justice: A Factor Analysis Of The “Get- Tough” Policy Trend. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3 (2), 184–207. Https://doi.org/10.1177/088740348900300205
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hogeveen, B. R. (2005). “If we are tough on crime, if we punish crime, then people get the message”: Constructing and governing the punishable young offender in Canada during the late 1990s. Punishment & Society, 7 (1), 73–89. Https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474505048134
Wortley, R., & Sidebottom, A. (2017). Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice, 1–6. Https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0131
