An Examination of the System, CONTEMPORARYIts Challenges, and Its Future CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONTEMPORARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONTEMPORARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE

FIRST EDITION Edited by Kendra N. Bowen and Jason D. Spraitz Texas Christian University / University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire Bassim Hamadeh, CEO and Publisher Kassie Graves, Director of Acquisitions Jamie Giganti, Senior Managing Editor Miguel Macias, Senior Graphic Designer Zina Craft, Senior Field Acquisitions Editor Gem Rabanera, Project Editor Elizabeth Rowe, Licensing Coordinator Chelsey Schmid, Associate Editor Kat Ragudos, Interior Designer

Copyright © 2017 by Cognella, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of Cognella, Inc.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Cover image copyright© Depositphotos/welcomia.

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-5165-0560-9 (pbk) / 978-1-5165-0561-6 (br) CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Crime and Victimization (By Eric Kocian) 1

What is Criminal Justice? 1 Definition and Elements of Crime 2 What is Crime? 5 Actus Reus & Mens Rea 6 Due Process 7 The Crime Problem 8 Crime Measurement 9 Crime Trends & Patterns 14 Offenders 16 Victimization 16 Crime Control in the United States 19 The Structure of the Criminal Justice System 20 Criminal Justice Wedding Cake 23 Credits 24

Chapter 2: Policing: Past to Present (By Ryan Getty) 25

Introduction 25 Law and Policing Prior to the English Influence 25 The English Influence 27 Policing in the United States 30 Colonial America 31 The Eras of Policing 32 The Political Era 32 The Reform or Professional Era 33 The Community Involvement Era 37 The Post-9/11 Era 39 The Police Function 40 The Structure of Policing 44 Departments Sizes, Chiefs, and Their Environment 44 Departmental Structure and Specialization 46 Federal Law Enforcement 47 Credits 49

Contents iii Chapter 3: Policing: The Police and the Law (By Richard C. Helfers) 51

Introduction 51 Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion 52 The Search Warrant Process 53 Warrantless Searches 54 Consent 54 Abandoned Property and Open Fields 56 Plain View 56 Incident to Arrest 56 Automobile Exception 57 Inventories 58 Exigent 59 Stop and Frisk 60 The Exclusionary Rule 61 Good Faith Exception 62 Knock and Announce 62 Interrogations and Confessions 63 Recent Developments with Technology 64 Chapter Summary 66

Chapter 4: Policing: Contemporary Issues (By Richard C. Helfers) 67

Introduction 67 Police Legitimacy 68 Discretion 70 Use of Force 72 Race Relations 75 Homeland Security and Terrorism 76 Technology 79 Social Media 81 Recruitment 82 Chapter Summary 83 Credits 84

Chapter 5: Courts: Essentials of the Court System (By Jennifer Huck) 85

Introduction 85 Brief History of the Courts 85

iv Contemporary Criminal Justice Federal System 86 State System 87 The Structure of the Court System 90 State Court Systems 91 Federal Court System 92 Adversarial vs. Advocacy 95 Specialized Courts – An Example of Advocacy 96 Courtroom Work Group 96 Prosecutor 97 Role of the Prosecutor 97 Charging Decisions 98 Defense Attorney 98 Types of Defense Attorneys 99 Role of the Defense Attorney 100 Judge 100 Role of the Judge 101 Discretionary Decisions 101 Other Courtroom Staff and Participants 102 Courtroom Work Group and the Importance of Working Together 103 Credits 104

Chapter 6: Courts: Courtroom Proceedings (By Mari Pierce) 105

Introduction 105 The Pre-Trial Process 105 How Criminal Cases are Initiated 105 The Initial Appearance 107 The Bail Decision 108 Probable Cause Decision 111 Arraignment 113 Plea Bargaining 113 The Trial Process 115 Jury Selection 116 The Trial 118 The Sentencing Decision 121 The Appellate Process 123 Chapter Summary 126

Contents v Chapter 7: Courts: Sentencing (By Brian Iannacchione) 127

Introduction 127 Goals of Sentencing 127 Deterrence 128 Retribution 129 Incapacitation 130 Rehabilitation 130 Restoration 131 Types of Sentences 132 Types of Sentencing 132 The Death Penalty 134 Brief History of the Death Penalty 134 The Death Penalty in the Modern Era 136 Chapter Summary 139

Chapter 8: Corrections: Community Corrections (By Jeremy Olson & Brian Iannacchione) 141

Introduction 141 Context of Community Corrections in the United States 142 Probation and Parole 143 The Continuum of Restrictiveness: Graduated Sanctions 147 Costs, Fines, and Restitution 148 House Arrest and House Arrest with Electronic Monitor 149 Counseling 150 Day Treatment and After-School Programs 151 Foster Care 152 Experiential Education/Wilderness Schools 152 Intensive Supervision probation and Shock Probation 153 Boot Camp 153 Community Residential Treatment Facilities 154 Secure Residential Facilities 155 Conclusion 155

Chapter 9: Corrections: Prisons and Jails (By Renee Lamphere) 157

Introduction 157 History of the U.S. Prison System 157

vi Contemporary Criminal Justice Crime & Punishment in Colonial America 157 The Emergence of Prisons 160 The Penitentiary & Mass Prison Era 161 The Reformatory Era 163 The Industrial Prison Era 165 The Treatment and Community-Based Eras 166 The Warehousing Era 167 The Evidence-Based Era 168 Prisons Today 169 Security Levels & Classification Systems 171 Private Prisons 173 The Inmate Experience 174 The Male Inmate Experience 175 The Female Inmate Experience 177 Jails 178 Chapter Summary 179 Credits 180

Chapter 10: Corrections: Reentry and Reintegration (By Breanne Pleggenkuhle) 181

Introduction 181 Security and Public Safety 181 Barriers to Reentry and Reintegration 183 Stigmatization 184 Employment and Education 185 Housing 188 Family Dynamics 190 Civic Identity and Benefits 192 Disadvantage 193 Economic Strain 194 Special Populations 195 Female Offenders 195 Elderly Offenders 196 Mentally Ill Offenders 197 Conclusion 198

Contents vii Chapter 11: The Juvenile Justice System (By Jeremy Olson) 199

Introduction 199 Juvenile Delinquency 200 Brief History of the U.S. Juvenile Justice System 202 The Role of the Juvenile Justice System 204 An Evolving Juvenile Court 205 In re: Gault 205 In re: Winship 206 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 206 Breed v. Jones 206 Charging Juveniles 207 The Juvenile Court Process 209 Disposition and Corrections in the Juvenile System 211 Restorative Justice 211 Contemporary Issues: Cyberbullying and School Violence 212

Chapter 12: The Future of the Criminal Justice System (By Kendra N. Bowen and Jason D. Spraitz) 215

Introduction 215 Hot Topics in Crime Policy 216 The Future of Criminal Justice Systems 218 Policing 218 Courts 219 Corrections 220 Prevention and Evidence-Based Crime Policy 221 Juvenile Justice 223 Conclusion 224

References and Cases 227

References 227 Cases 261 Glossary 263

viii Contemporary Criminal Justice CHAPTER 1 CRIME AND VICTIMIZATION

By Eric Kocian Saint Vincent College

What is Criminal Justice?

Th e criminal justice system is a collection of institutions that operate interdepen- dently to enforce accepted standards of conduct in society and to protect the general public. Due to the nature of crime, societal changes, and advancing threats to national and personal safety, the criminal justice system is constantly evolving to meet the challenges and risks that exist. Th e criminal justice system primarily refers to: police, courts, and corrections. Criminal justice agencies are the government institutions responsible for opposing civil disobedience and executing government policies. Th e police do this by investigating criminal law violations, protecting private and public property, and maintaining public order; the courts by prosecuting criminal violations while protecting the rights of the accused; and corrections by executing the sentences imposed on the guilty. Th e system operates at three distinct levels (federal, state, and local) to enforce criminal laws and statutes within their respective jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is diff erent, which allows for a more thorough and useful system of justice because of the diff erent criminal statutes associated with each branch. Federal laws are applied uniformly throughout the United States, but state laws and punishments vary from one state to the next, since each state is free to enact its own

1 criminal code inasmuch as it does not violate the Constitutional rights of the people, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Bailey, 1989; Barnes, 2001; Chambliss, 2011).

Definition and Elements of Crime

The United States Constitution and the constitutions of each indi- vidual state define and regulate what is required and what is prohibited for members of American society. As outlined in these documents of law, there is a categorical breakdown between substantive and proce- SUBSTANTIVE LAW dural law. Substantive law is written law that deals with rights, duties, Written law that governs behaviors and prohibitions that are controlled and is passed through legislation. In short, it determines which behaviors are permitted and which PROCEDURAL LAW behaviors are outlawed. Procedural laws are developed through the Developed by the courts to govern how substantive law is administered appellate courts and deal with how the substantive law of the land is and enforced administered, enforced, altered, and utilized by the individuals in the criminal justice system. Procedural laws can revolve around topics and protocols such as filing charges, presenting expert witness testimony in a criminal trial, handling evidence from a crime scene, and selecting a PRIVATE LAW Rules and procedures governing jury (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011; Vago, 2009). interactions and relationships When discussing the concept of law, it is important to make a between people distinction between the two recognized forms of legal wrongs: private law and public law. Private law, in the general scope, is most concerned PUBLIC LAW with rules and procedures for governing relationships and interactions Rules and procedures concerning government structure, as well between people. Private laws most often deal with contracts, wills, as the duty and responsibilities inheritance, marriages, divorces, labor law, family law, business deal- of individuals working within the ings, child custody, and adoptions. Public law focuses on the structure government of government; the power, duties, and responsibilities of individuals CIVIL LAW within governmental positions; and the relationship between the Form of private law consisting of individual and the state and its political subdivisions (Carlan, Nored, rules and procedures governing & Downey, 2011; Vago, 2009). relationships and conduct with other people The breakdown of law between private and public can further be analyzed when considering the more familiar discussion between civil TORT law and criminal law. Civil law, as a form of private law, consists of rules Violation of civil law leading to civil and procedures for governing the relationships and conduct of people legal liability with others. A violation of a civil statute is referred to as a tort, and it

2 Contemporary Criminal Justice is a private wrong that allows the injured party to seek compensation from the accused in the form of money or an order from the court to cease a specific behavior. In most cases, some form of payment is required of the defendant to rectify and remedy the damage caused to the victim. Criminal law, by contrast, is a form of public misconduct, CRIMINAL LAW Body of law that defines criminal even though there may have been harm caused to an individual. A offenses (crime) and specifies the crime is considered a public wrongdoing, because it has caused some punishment for those offenses type of social harm (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011; Vago, 2009). As a result, it is “the state” or “the people” who take action against an offender. In criminal law proceedings, it will often be noted as, “The State” or “The Commonwealth” or “The People” versus the defendant’s last name. The harm that was done may have been to an individual, but the victim is a member of society and as a result, society suffers as well and serves as the plaintiff. Many definitions of crimes have been established and punishments administered across various districts, counties, and states. This man- ner of justice administration resulted in fragmented criminal codes and sentence differentials between offenders from one jurisdiction to another (Kocian, 2010; Petersilia & Greenwood, 1978). The Model THE MODEL PENAL CODE Statutory text developed by the Penal Code, developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962 American Law Institute (ALI) and updated in 1981, was a statutory text that assisted legislatures in updating, organizing, and standardizing criminal codes enacted by the states. For many states, the idea of codifying their criminal statutes was a foreign one, because their criminal codes were often poorly orga- nized and did not specifically define their crimes. The Model Penal Code arranged matters differently, organizing itself into four parts: (1) general provisions containing definitional functions and presump- tive rules; (2) definitions of specific offenses; (3) provisions governing treatment and correction; and (4) provisions governing the organiza- tion of corrections departments and divisions, such as the divisions responsible for parole or probation. Many legal-minded scholars contend that the Model Penal Code was one of the most important developments in American criminal law, because it helped many states to change their laws by classifying them in terms of degrees (American Law Institute, 1962).

Crime and Victimization 3 When looking at culpability in a crime, the Model Penal Code states that for someone to be guilty of a crime, he or she must act purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Purposely suggests that the person consciously chose to engage in the conduct of the behavior or consciously caused the result in question. Accidents happen, and sometimes people are still held liable when they hap- pen, but when dealing with the majority of criminal offenses, there must be some element of purpose or intent. Knowingly means that the person was aware that his or her conduct was likely to cause a particular result, even if they claim it was not their intent to do so. An example would be a man who traffics drugs from Mexico into the United States for financial gain. The drug trafficker knew he had drugs in his car when he crossed country lines and knew it was against the law. Recklessly deals with the person disregarding or ignoring the potential risk of harm associated with the behavior and that the person’s conduct constituted a drastic departure from the standard of conduct a law-abiding citizen would have observed in the same situation. In short, these people know about the risks associated with a certain type of behavior and go forward with the behavior anyway. Someone who drag races through a school zone at a time of day that school is letting out, when there could be numer- ous people in crosswalks, is an example of someone acting recklessly. Negligently translates to a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm in a way that involves a drastic departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation. Negligence is when someone does not recognize the risk caused by his or her actions. An example to personify the element of negligence may include someone who fires a gun into a building believing the building is empty, but ends up injuring some- one inside. The shooter should have known there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm, but failed to recognize that and acted in a manner that caused harm (Barnes, 2001). These elements all speak about the culpability of an individual in criminal behavior, but to fully understand criminal culpability, it is essential to understand what goes into defining crime.

4 Contemporary Criminal Justice WHAT IS CRIME? A crime is considered a public wrong that is committed against CRIME An act that violates criminal law society. It is an act that violates a public statute or law for which the government may impose some type of punishment. A crime can be considered a commission of a prohibited act (drinking and driving, for example) or the omission of a required act (providing reasonable living accommodations for children) without a justifiable defense. Crimes FELONY CRIMES are generally broken down as felonies or misdemeanors. Felony crimes A more serious crime that includes have punishments that include a year or more of time in a federal or a punishment of a year or more of state institution or death for those found guilty, while misdemeanor incarceration crimes have punishments that are limited to less than one year in jail and/or a monetary fine (Barnes, 2001; Carlin, Nored, & Downey, MISDEMEANOR CRIMES A less serious crime that includes a 2011). punishment of less than a year of jail In addition to crime being discussed in terms of type of punish- time and/or a monetary fine ment imposed (felony versus misdemeanor), some discuss crime in terms of moral condemnation or legitimacy of the crime itself in terms of overall consensus. Crimes such as prostitution, marijuana consump- tion, and gambling are considered mala prohibita, or “wrong by statute” MALA PROHIBITA Latin phrase used to describe acts or decree. There is no general consensus that these violations of the that are prohibited by law law are criminal in and of themselves but, instead, are the result of a legislative body that enforces certain behaviors. In contrast, crimes like murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping are classified as mala in se, or MALA IN SE Latin phrase used to describe acts “wrong in itself,” because there is public agreement on the danger or that are morally wrong based on the evils these behaviors pose across generations or cultures. Mala in se societal agreement crimes are considered immoral by a majority of societal members and are not as easily debated regarding punishable or permissible as mala prohibita crimes (Vago, 2009). Regardless of whether crime is broken down into finite terms, like felony or misdemeanor, or whether crime is broken down into debat- able categories, like mala prohibita and mala in se, the fact remains that any time the government seeks to enforce the law of the land, there are certain requirements and conditions that must be met in order not to deprive someone of the individual freedoms guaranteed in the United States Constitution. The first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified effective December 15, 1791 (Rakove, BILL OF RIGHTS First 10 Amendments to the 2009). Of all the various protections and guarantees provided for Constitution

Crime and Victimization 5 citizens outlined in the Constitution, one of the most critical notions that remains paramount in protecting the rights of an individual is the idea of due process.

ACTUS REUS & MENS REA Crime, for the most part, has two elements: actus reus and mens ACTUS REUS rea. Actus reus is a Latin term for “guilty act,” and it consists of a Latin phrase meaning guilty act, referring to an act of commission or voluntary physical act that is prohibited by those in authority. Mens omission prohibited by law rea, also Latin, is translated “guilty mind” and deals with the state of mind of the offender in criminal actions. The mindset of the actor MENS REA committing the prohibited behavior may vary from negligence to a Latin phrase meaning guilty mind, referring to someone’s state of mind specific intention to commit a particular crime. Typically, the ele- ments actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the required state of mind) must be concurrent. In other words, someone cannot be convicted of thinking they would like to kill someone without some form of action to carry out their desire. However, once this individual sets in motion any steps to fulfill this desire, he or she has satisfied the actus reus element for a crime to take place. Likewise, an action without a “bad” or “guilty” state of mind is generally not sufficient to punish someone in the criminal justice system. Mistakenly taking someone’s personal property thinking that you were taking your own belong- ings does not make that person guilty of theft, because there was no intent to steal. However, if you realize the property you took does not belong to you, and you decide to keep it, then the intent to commit a crime has been established (Melone & Karnes, 2008). In order for the government to hold an individual culpable or accountable for his or her actions, the prosecuting attorney must prove both the mens rea and actus reus. There are, however, rare exceptions to this due to STRICT LIABILITY the principle of strict liability. Strict liability is when a defendant is Exception to mens rea; does not require intention presumed guilty without regard to or proof of any mental fault. Two common examples that illustrate the idea of strict liability include drug possession and prostitution. In both of these examples, there is no mens rea to cause harm to anyone else. The guilty parties, however, are still held accountable for their actions, because they are still responsible for their actions (actus reus) even though there was no “guilty mind” or intent to do harm (mens rea). Strict liability exists

6 Contemporary Criminal Justice in both civil and criminal cases (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011; Cornell University Law School, n.d.). As mentioned earlier, the Model Penal Code assisted many states in changing their laws to ensure a more unified system of justice. An example of how the Model Penal Code helped in changing state laws to become more unified can be used with the concept of mens rea. Mens rea was such that previous state criminal statutes took a scat- tershot approach to defining the intent to do harm, requiring it for some crimes and not for others. Additionally, multiple terms and pro- cedures were used to gauge and measure the culpability of an offender. The Model Penal Code stated that an individual was not guilty of an offense unless he or she acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently in respect to each element of the offense (American Law Institute, 1962). It also specifically defined what those terms meant in regard to behavior in a criminal law context. The clarity and simplic- ity of this approach made it attractive for numerous states to replace their individual state codes with those influenced by the Model Penal Code. Following the introduction of the Model Penal Code, 36 states adopted new criminal codes with all of them being influenced by the Model Penal Code. Many of these states used the precise language of the Model Penal Code for their state statutes.

DUE PROCESS The due process protection clause is housed in both the Fifth and the 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment protects people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the federal government without due process of law (Rakove, 2009). The 14th Amendment protects people born or naturalized in the United States from any state laws that violate the privileges of a United States citizen or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Rakove, 2009). Due Process is the provision that protects private citizens from DUE PROCESS Guarantees fair criminal justice intrusions and infringements on their life, liberties, and property by procedures afforded to society by stipulating protocols and procedures the government must follow the Fifth and 14th Amendments before taking action against a citizen. Due process is concerned with making sure fair procedures are followed accordingly when dealing

Crime and Victimization 7 with people in society. When a person is treated unfairly by the local, state, or federal government, that person is said to have been deprived of or denied due process because the Fifth and 14th Amendments have provided standards for the treatment of citizens by the government. The reason due process is mentioned in the 14th Amendment, when it was previously mentioned in the Fifth Amendment, is because the Fifth Amendment protections only dealt with federal government intrusions and violations. The 14th Amendment took the guarantees provided in the Fifth Amendment and applied them to state law and state government (Cornell University Law School, n.d.; Melone & Karnes, 2008). Due process can be broken down into two distinct dimensions: PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due Requirement that a fair process must be followed before the government process pertains to the requirement that a fair process must be fol- can deprive someone of life, liberty, lowed before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property or property. In other words, procedural limitations are placed on the government when it comes to administering, applying, or enforcing the laws of the land. Forcing government officials to follow specific procedures better ensures that people accused of a crime are not dealt with indiscriminately or arbitrarily. The main focus on procedural due process is on “protocol.” Were the proper protocols followed when SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS administering justice? Substantive due process, on the other hand, Requirement of freedom and liberty without the intrusion or interference deals with matters of freedom and liberty without the intrusion or of government interference of government. These are substantive limitations placed on the content of state or federal law to ensure government intrusions on liberties are suppressed. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and types of parental discipline styles fall under the umbrella of substantive due process arguments in courts of law, because these topics deal with discussion and debate about how much government intrusion is neces- sary or permitted in these cases (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011.).

The Crime Problem

In a recent Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans said crime is a very serious problem in the United States, while another 38 percent identi- fied it as moderately serious. As part of the same poll, 65 percent of

8 Contemporary Criminal Justice Americans said they would not be afraid of walking at night where they live (Dugan, 2013). These numbers seem to be at odds with each other, and assuming those polled were being honest, it helps illuminate the crime problem in the United States. The expression “crime problem” might mean something different to different people. To the sociologist, it might refer to a problem of discrimination; to the lawyer, it could deal with the backlog of cases that need to be processed through the system; to the prison warden, it may be an issue with prison over- crowding and officer-to-inmate safety; to the police chief, it could be about staffing and dangerous patrol areas; but to the criminologist, it may be a combination of these examples or an issue with how crime is studied and measured.

CRIME MEASUREMENT The way crime is measured and what reports are utilized can often- times paint a portrait that is very different from reality. For example, the person who relies exclusively on arrest reports to argue a point on crime in the country is not getting the most definitive representation of crime, because approximately 50 percent of violent victimizations go unreported to police (Langton, Berzofsky, Krebs, & Smiley- McDonald, 2012). Crimes are not reported to police for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the victim dealt with the crime in another man- ner, such as reporting it to an employer, manager, or school official. Some victims do not go to the police out of fear or they believe the crime itself was not important enough to report. Others do not come forward for reasons of practicality or convenience, because doing so may unduly harm the lifestyle they are most familiar with, as in the cases of domestic violence or abuse (Langton, Berzofsky, Krebs, & Smiley-McDonald, 2012). Regardless of the reasons for not coming forward, the fact remains that there is a significant amount of crime that goes unreported. This statistic is known as the dark figure of DARK FIGURE OF CRIME Crime that goes unreported to police crime, and it refers to the occurrences that are defined as “crime” but are not registered in the statistics for official crime data (Biderman & Reiss, 1967). In order to get a more definitive picture and clearer understanding of crime, it is best to utilize multiple sources. In doing so, it is most

Crime and Victimization 9 important to understand that each source will have certain strengths and weaknesses associated with it when using it to look at crime. UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING (UCR) The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program is a national First FBI summary based program that provides national crime initiative that began in 1929 that provides crime data from more than statistics recorded by participating 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the country. This data, which is law enforcement agencies in voluntarily submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for pur- the U.S. poses of generating a valid set of crime statistics, is used by those in law enforcement, policymakers, those in academia, and the public. The information in the UCR has become a social indicator of crime on the national level, since it utilizes arrest reports from the thousands of agencies and departments that submit their reports to the FBI (Nolan, Haas, & Napier, 2011). The UCR is considered a better estimate of the national crime picture, as opposed to looking at the arrest reports for one department, because the characteristics of that department may not be indicative of the national trends. For example, the murder rate in a small town would provide very little usefulness when trying to dis- cuss the national murder rate because of the differences between rural and urban areas, the contrasts in people living in the areas, population compositions, and socioeconomic conditions. The UCR divides the offenses into one of two categories: Type I Offenses and Type II Offenses. Type I Offenses include criminal homicide, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny- theft, and motor vehicle theft. Type II Offenses include other simple assaults, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, prostitution, drug abuse, gambling, weapons violations, disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, and all other violations, except traffic violations (Department of Justice-Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation, when discussing the UCR, has acknowledged that the legitimacy of the UCR program depends on the individual agencies and departments submitting the informa- tion. To assist with this phenomenon, considerable attention has been placed on errors with victim reporting, police recording, and missing and misclassified data (Nolan, Haas, & Napier, 2011). Despite all of these efforts and more, the fact remains that the UCR cannot be used exclusively to paint the best picture of crime for a number of reasons. First, not all agencies comply with sending in their reports. Matters

10 Contemporary Criminal Justice revolving around manpower, personnel changes, budgetary issues, natural disasters, and inadequate training prevent some departments from reporting on time, consistently, or at all (Maltz & Targonski, 2002). Second, as mentioned earlier, approximately 50 percent of crime goes unreported. Since data is compiled for the UCR from arrest reports, it stands to reason that if there is no arrest, there is no real statistic or account for the crime that took place. Add those numbers to the list of victimless crimes, or illegal acts where there is no appar- VICTIMLESS CRIMES Crimes in which there is no apparent ent victim or the victim willingly participates, such as drug crimes victim or the victim is a willing and prostitution, and it becomes evident that the UCR excludes actual participant crime that may be taking place (Schmalleger & Bartollas, 2008). Third, the UCR employs the hierarchy rule. In some instances, HIERARCHY RULE Recording the most serious crime of offenders may engage in multiple offenses as part of a criminal event. multiple crimes that take place in a For example, an offender robs a drug dealer at gunpoint. The drug criminal event dealer fights back and the offender shoots and kills the drug dealer. During commission of the robbery, the offender also committed mur- der. The UCR only counts the murder in this situation. By employing the hierarchy rule, certain crimes are not counted; thus, the UCR provides a less-than-perfect picture of criminal activity. The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is a NATIONAL INCIDENT BASED REPORTING SYSTEM (NIBRS) reporting system that collects data on each single crime occurrence FBI incident based program that from various local, state, and federal agencies throughout the United provides national crime statistics States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). NIBRS came about in recorded by participating law 1988 as a result of people wanting a more thorough evaluation of the enforcement agencies in the U.S. UCR program to meet the needs of law enforcement. NIBRS has more detail than the UCR when it comes to crime reporting, it differentiates between completed crimes and attempted offenses, discerns male from female rape victims, includes crimes committed using a computer, and distinguishes between crimes committed against persons and crimes committed against property. Additionally, NIBRS does not employ the hierarchy rule, so that, in the event more than one crime was commit- ted in a short span of time by an offender (or multiple offenders), all criminal activity that transpired during that event is recorded for pur- poses of analysis. These remain some of the benefits that NIBRS can

Crime and Victimization 11 provide that the UCR cannot, which makes it attractive for purposes of studying crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Much like the UCR, there are some drawbacks when utilizing NIBRS. The most pressing concern is that, as of 2004, 5,271 law enforcement agencies contributed data to NIBRS. This data represents only 20 percent of the population and 16 percent of the crime statistics (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). Although more in-depth in particular areas when compared to the UCR, the number of agencies reporting makes it difficult to make generalizations because of the lim- ited numbers of departments reporting. Implementing NIBRS is such that it oftentimes depends on the resources, abilities, and limitations of law enforcement departments, which could help explain why the number of reporting agencies is less than 50 percent (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). As discussed when outlining the limitations of the UCR, NIBRS does not have statistics for unreported crime. If there is no police record of a crime or law violation, there is no real numeric value for purposes of study, and thus, NIBRS does not illuminate the dark figure of crime any better than the UCR. The best approach to tapping into the dark figure of crime came about NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION in 1972 with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the SURVEY (NCVS) Primary victimization survey in the nation’s premier source of intelligence on criminal victimization. Each United States; conducted by the year, approximately 90,000 American households (160,000 people) are Bureau of Justice Statistics questioned on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of their criminal victimization. This survey, which is administered to those selected households twice a year, allows the Bureau of Justice Statistics to better estimate the propensity of victimization and make more concise generalizations to various segments of the population (e.g., the elderly, females, etc.) and also the population as a whole (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.; Schmalleger & Bartollas, 2008). The NCVS was designed with four major objectives. First, it was designed to develop more in-depth information about the victims and consequences of crime, since this component was lacking with other data sources known at the time. Second, it was designed to gain a better estimation on the number of crimes not reported to the police (dark figure of crime). Third, it was designed to provide uniform measures of

12 Contemporary Criminal Justice selected types of criminal behaviors, for purposes of analysis from one year to the next. Fourth, it was designed to make it easier to compare crime over time, locations, and people. The NCVS categorizes crimes as either “personal” or “property.” Crimes against persons include rape/sexual assault, assault, robbery, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking. Property crimes consist of theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism (National Archive for Criminal Justice Data, n.d.). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the greatest benefit of the NCVS is the fact that it is a data collection method that taps into the dark figure of crime. The survey asks people about a number of aspects associated with a criminal event that include the type of crime committed, month, time of day, location, property or money lost, relationship to the offender (if known), whether it was reported to police, why it may not have been reported, weapons present or used, and demographic information of the victim (National Achieve for Criminal Justice Data, n.d.). The NCVS, in many ways, gives voice to the victim and collects information about crime from the victim’s perspective. The UCR and NIBRS are very much “offender-driven” because of the nature of police work and standardized reports that accompany an incident. There are sections of these reports dedicated to victims, but the fact remains that the majority of information is about the offender and his or her background and current condition. The NCVS is quite contrary in this regard and gives a tremendous amount of information about the crime from the victim’s angle. There are, however, multiple shortcomings associated with the NCVS, which suggest it can- not be used singularly to provide an accurate depiction of crime in America. Perhaps the biggest issue is one that revolves around the validity of the testimony given by those surveyed. Some respondents may over-exaggerate their victimization while others may understate it, both of which are difficult to assess with no official report to back up their statements. Another prob- lem is that people are not always comfortable discussing their victimization, especially with a complete stranger and may not be willing to answer questions. If someone was too distraught to make an official report to the police about being the victim of a crime, the likelihood exists they may not wish to share it with the NCVS. Since the surveys are voluntary, the interviewer must also respect the wishes of the respondent. The NCVS does not collect data on people under the age of 12 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Juveniles are overrepresented in comparison to other age groups when discussing victimization and having to exclude children under 12 causes the NCVS to not capture more of the dark figure of crime. Not collecting information from people under the age of 12 has less to do with parental consent and more to do with legitimacy of information (Schmalleger & Bartollas, 2008). After acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the data sources discussed, the best way to understand crime and get the best representation of what crime genuinely looks like for any given period of time is to employ an integrated approach where the UCR, NIBRS, and

Crime and Victimization 13 NCVS are all examined. In doing so, more concise and sound policy decisions could be made for the crime trends and patterns identified.

CRIME TRENDS & PATTERNS When looking at the patterns and the trends of crime, we see periods where crime is waxing and waning. Some contend that there is no rhyme or reason for the patterns we see in crime, while others take a more scientific look at the causes and correlates of crime and attempt to explain the peaks and valleys (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). From the 1960s through the early 1990s, for example, the United States saw an increase in crime. Possible explanations may include the fact that crimes reported to law enforcement seemed to be rising significantly. In turn, more arrests were being made. At this time, new legislation was being passed that brought tougher punishments for violators. As a result, the number of people incarcerated increased (McDonald & Finn, 2000). Illegal drug use also became more widespread in the 1960s, and the government responded aggressively to help curb these offenses. Beginning in the early 1990s, however, there were very sharp decreases in crime. Homicide rates in the 1990s fell 43 percent to a level lower than they had been in 35 years, while property crimes and other violent crimes also fell 29 percent and 34 percent (Levitt, 2004). The explanations for this tend to vary. Some suggest that it was about the professionalization of police and community-oriented policing efforts, while others focus on economic factors or the declining youth population (Marowitz, 2000). Criminologists and sociologists argue the reasons for this historic decrease in crime. As the 1990s gave way to the 2000s, the focus on crime took a back seat to other more pressing concerns, especially after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In the days, months, and years follow- ing 9/11, local, state, and federal focus shifted toward counterterrorism, the War on Terror, and protecting our nation from additional outside attacks. Some criminologists believe, because of various factors, that we are in the midst of another shift in crime in the United States. In 2005, for example, the United States experienced minor increases in homicide (3.4 percent), robberies (3.9 percent), and aggravated

14 Contemporary Criminal Justice FIGURE 1.1

UCR crime data show a decrease in violent crime beginning in the early-1990s. Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

assaults (1.8 percent) that continued through to 2006. Places like Sacramento, Orlando, Cincinnati, and Washington, D.C., were all see- ing increases in crime unlike anything in over a decade. Despite these slight increases, violent crime rates continued to fall from 2008 to 2011, with a very small increase (0.7 percent) in 2012 (U.S. Department of Justice-Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). In 2013, the volume of crime decreased with a 4.4 percent reduction in violent crime and a FIGURE 1.2

UCR crime data show a decrease in property crime beginning in the early-1990s. Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

Crime and Victimization 15 4.1 percent reduction in property crime compared to 2012. During the most recent 10-year period for which comprehensive UCR data exists (2004 to 2013), violent crime has decreased 14.5 percent, and property crime has lowered by 16.3 percent (U.S. Department of Justice-Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014).

OFFENDERS Most people break the law at least once in their lifetime (Kadish, 1983). If we took the time to think about that statement for a moment and our individual, previous behaviors, we would see the truth of that proclamation. Perhaps, in your younger days, you shoplifted candy or clothing from a store, engaged in underage drinking, vandalized an abandoned building, spray-painted graffiti at a playground, or even drove somewhere today without a seatbelt. All of these behaviors are violations of the law and carry with them varying degrees of formal punishment if caught. Having noted that, it is safe to assume that everyone in society is an offender and has the potential to engage in crime and delinquency. Fortunately, the majority of people abide by the law instead of breaking the law. When we think of offenders, it OFFENDER is important to consider the very definition of offender, or someone Someone who violates criminal law who violates human or divine law, can include anyone. There is no “cookie cutter” profile for who will engage in a specific crime, the risk it will cause to society, or prevention options to keep that person from offending (Byrne & Roberts, 2007). Murderers, drug dealers, gang members, white collar criminals, pedophiles, rapists, batterers, burglars, identity thieves, and mentally ill offenders all experience different triggers, thoughts, and emotions, which can vary in duration and intensity. When an individual chooses to act on said urges, desires, or impulses, crime and victimization is likely to follow.

VICTIMIZATION There are a number of ways people can be victimized. A crime someone may fall victim to could be an email scam where someone has informed you that you inherited or are entitled to a large sum of money, but in order to collect this large cash fund, you must provide

16 Contemporary Criminal Justice some detailed personal information and a small payment to comply with the government, bank restrictions, or taxes in the country. Or, it could be an incident where someone broke into your home and stole valuables while you were away on vacation. For as many crimes that are committed, there are just as many, if not more, victims impacted by those crimes. A victim is someone who has suffered direct harm from a VICTIM Someone who has suffered direct criminal offender during the course of a crime (Nash, 1992). The study harm by an offender of victimology is the study of the victim–offender relationship and the impact of crime on society (Nash, 1992). It encompasses not only VICTIMOLOGY The study of victimization the victim, but the relationship to the offender and the ripple effect those actions against the victim may have on the rest of society. For example, on December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza walked into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and shot twenty children and six staff members. Investigators could not determine a motive or an explanation for his actions, yet his behavior, from a victi- mology standpoint, continues to be analyzed from the victim–offender relationship paradigm and in the context of how his actions affected society (Stoller, 2013). The discipline of victimology is broken down into two distinct components. The first component, which receives the majority of attention, focuses on the injuries or harm suffered by a victim, how to reduce such victimization, and what should be done with the offender. The second component, one that is gaining greater attention, deals with the relationship between the victim and the offender and why or how that person was selected by the offender over someone else (Wallace & Roberson, 2015). There is not a unanimous consent over an agreeable definition of “crime victim.” Legislation on both the federal and state level exists to protect the rights of the victim, but that does not mean discussion and debate is absent from conversations about who should be included and excluded from the label of “crime victim.” The definition is critical for several reasons, but most importantly because it determines eligibility for important rights, such as notification of criminal proceedings and restitution from the offender (Barnes, 2001). The United States victims’ rights movement initially began in the 1960s. California initiated the first victim compensation program

Crime and Victimization 17 (Meadows, 2010). In 1982, President Ronald Reagan created the Task Force on Victims of Crime as part of his efforts to support the movement for victims’ rights. During his presidency, Reagan helped create the national Office of Victims of Crime and helped secure the 1984 passage of the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) (UNC University Library, n.d.). Presently, every state in the United States and the federal government has laws pertaining to victims and the rights of victims. Every court system allows for victim impact information to be involved during sentencing hearings, and a majority of states give victims notice of court dates for the accused and the right to attend the events and proceedings associated with the specific crime during which they were victimized (Barnes, 2001). There are many ways in which someone can be victimized, includ- ing psychologically, emotionally, financially, and physically (Paoli & Greenfield, 2013). Physical injuries are divided into four subcategories. Immediate injuries include cuts, broken bones, bruises, contusions, etc. Immediate injuries have a tendency to heal quickly and are usually not perceived as serious or life threatening by most people. Injuries that leave visible scars is the second category and includes facial or bodily scarring, loss of teeth, toes, and/or fingers, and the loss of mobility. Although these injuries are not considered catastrophic, they can cause a change in the victim’s lifestyle as a result of the harm. Unknown long-term physical injuries can result in loss of life or the complete change in life activities and include exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Unknown long-term physical injuries do not have to be the result of a sexual attack, but the transmission of gonorrhea, syphilis, and the aforementioned diseases could occur as a result. Long-term catastrophic injuries include anything that restricts a victim’s physical movements as a result of severe injury or trauma. In these cases, family members, in addition to the victim, often have to drastically alter their lifestyle to meet the needs of the victim (Wallace & Roberson, 2011).

18 Contemporary Criminal Justice Crime Control in the United States

After discussing the various ways someone in society can be victimized and understanding how the negative consequences of victimization can last for an inordinate amount of time, it stands to reason that regulating certain behaviors is essential to protecting the wellbeing of the general public. The volume and depth of legislation to deter harmful behavior is such that it would be nearly impossible to adequately discuss all crimes, responses to them, and the consequences of legislative decision making (Carlan, Nored, & Downey, 2011). It is important to note that the harm caused by a criminal activity is crucial to justifying the crimi- nalization of that behavior and the type and degree of punishment that corresponds (Paoli & Greenfield, 2013). When discussing crime control in the United States, two mod- els exist. The crime control model places an emphasis on reducing CRIME CONTROL MODEL Emphasizes reducing harm and harm and crime in society by expanding the prosecutorial powers of crime in society through increased the government and law enforcement. This model assumes more of police and prosecutorial discretion an “assembly line conveyor belt” operated by the police and prosecu- tors, where the end product is a guilty plea and the overwhelming focus is on efficiency. This is achieved by giving police broad powers of arrest to determine a suspect’s culpability in a crime and encouraging defendants to enter into plea agreements. The investigating officers are more concerned with “factual guilt,” meaning whether the accused committed the crime, as opposed to “legal guilt,” which takes into considerations the rights of the accused and his or her defenses as guaranteed by the Constitution. The penalties and punishments levied against offenders are considered necessary for maintaining public order and guaranteeing social freedom. In other words, this model protects people and their property and preserves order and stability. This model advocates for prosecutors being allowed to appeal a not-guilty verdict in a court of law. The rationale for this is that the acquittal of a guilty person is harmful to the wellbeing of society and is more likely than the conviction of an innocent person (Roach, 1999; USLegal, 2014). Thedue process model, on the other hand, is more concerned with DUE PROCESS MODEL Emphasizes individual liberties and individual liberties and rights and asserts that limiting the powers of rights, ensuring appropriate legal government is best. This is best achieved by limiting the power of the procedures and actions

Crime and Victimization 19 police when dealing with the general public and investigating crimes, including informal fact-finding communications with suspects or the general public. No one should be arrested or detained in order to help develop an investigation or a case, and any statements made to police without a signed waiver of one’s right to remain silent should be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. In this model, there is great skepticism about the morality of sanctions against victimless crimes and a call for decriminalization of those offenses. It is argued that, in doing this, police abuses would be reduced and a greater emphasis could be placed on respecting the rights of the accused without an overburdened criminal justice system. If the crime control process is described as an “assembly line conveyor belt,” the due process model is likened to an “obstacle course” of sorts, because the defense attorneys argue before judges how the prosecution should be rejected, because the rights of the accused have been violated. The overwhelming focus of this model is on quality control, whereby all defendants are treated equally, regardless of wealth or status (Roach, 1999; USLegal, 2014).

The Structure of the Criminal Justice System

Regardless of the model one subscribes to, the structure of the criminal justice system is such that the process follows a very distinct and clear path as a case is processed (Figure 1.3). In most cases, someone in the private sector initiates the first response to crime, be it an individual, a family, a business, or a victim. They are the first ones to recognize a crime and report it to the police. Once reported to the police, an INVESTIGATION investigation begins with the hopes of identifying a suspect and Police examine the evidence of a case once a police report is made locating and apprehending the suspect for the case to proceed through the system. In ideal scenarios, a suspect is identified and taken into custody at the scene of the crime, but other times, no one is identified or apprehended (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Following an arrest, law enforcement officers present the findings of INITIAL APPEARANCE Appearance in front of a judge, their investigation to the prosecutor who will decide if formal charges after arrest, where the defendant will be filed against the suspect. If the prosecutor decides to go forward is informed of his/her rights, the with a charge, the accused must be immediately taken before a mag- charges filed, and bail is set istrate or a judge for the initial appearance. In the initial appearance 20 Contemporary Criminal Justice FIGURE 1.3

This depicts the typical sequence that cases take through the criminal justice system in the United States. Source: adapted from ‘The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society.’ President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967. This revision prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997.

Crime and Victimization 21 PRELIMINARY HEARING the judge or magistrate determines if probable cause exists to hold the A hearing in which the judge hears accused for trial, the judge sets bail, and the defendant is advised of the evidence from both the prosecution and the defense to determine if there right to counsel. In many jurisdictions, the preliminary hearing follows is enough evidence for the case to the initial appearance. The preliminary hearing serves to answer three go to trial questions. Was there a crime committed? Are there reasonable grounds PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the defendant committed the crime? Is this specific crime Legal standard required for a police within the court’s territorial jurisdiction? If the judge or magistrate officer to arrest a person or search finds probable cause for such beliefs, the case may be bound over to a a person, place, or thing; a situation where a police officer has reason to grand jury (If the judge does not find probable cause for these three believe that criminal activity may be questions, the case is dismissed, and the defendant is free). Probable occurring and the specific person cause asks, “Would a reasonable and intelligent person believe that this may be responsible specific person committed a specific crime based on the evidence at hand?” If probable cause is not established, the defendant is dismissed (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). GRAND JURY Grand juries hear evidence against a defendant, and they are Panel made up of citizens that hear tasked with deciding if there is sufficient evidence to bring the prosecutorial evidence and decides accused to trial. If a grand jury finds sufficient evidence against a whether criminal charges should be suspect, it will submit an indictment to the court, which is a written brought against someone statement of the critical facts of the case against the accused. Once INDICTMENT an indictment has been filed, the accused is scheduled for arraign- Formal decision of a grand jury that ment. At arraignment, the accused is once again informed of the shows there is enough evidence to charges, they are again advised of their rights, and for the first time, bring a person to trial they are asked to enter a plea to their charges (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). ARRAIGNMENT A plea can take one of three forms: not guilty, guilty, or nolo con- The accused is notified by a judge of charges, is advised of rights, and tendere (no contest). A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate enters a plea effects as a plea of guilty, but the accused accepts the penalty without admitting guilt. A guilty plea is oftentimes the result of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant, where the offender admits PLEA responsibility for the crime in exchange for a more lenient punish- The defendant can plea one of three possible forms: guilty, not-guilty, or ment. If the judge accepts a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea, the nolo contendere offender is sentenced at this proceeding or a proceeding at a later date. The judge may reject a guilty or no contest plea if it is believed that the accused was coerced. If the accused pleads not guilty, a trial date is set (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.).

22 Contemporary Criminal Justice Adjudication (guilty plea or trial) is the next step. In trial, the ADJUDICATION prosecution and the defense argue the facts of the case, and the judge A legal process in which a judge or rules on issues of law and procedure. If the person is found guilty, jury reviews evidence in a trial the defendant is sentenced by the judge, or in some cases, by the jury. Sentencing options range from capital punishment (for murder con- victions) or incarceration to restitution or probation, depending on the seriousness of the crime. A defendant can appeal, or request a review APPEAL of the conviction or sentence, but appeals are subject to the discretion A request to review a conviction or of the appellate court system (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). This sentence process will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters.

Criminal Justice Wedding Cake

Another way of understanding how offenders are dealt with and cases are viewed and processed is to contrast the assembly line model pre- viously discussed with the wedding cake model. The wedding cake WEDDING CAKE MODEL Model resembling a wedding model suggests that cases are sorted into “layers,” depending on the cake that layers crimes based on seriousness of the crime. The less serious cases are routinely located seriousness, with the less serious on the bottom layer of the cake and include misdemeanors, which are crimes forming the bottom layer and typically handled by the lower-level courts in an assembly line manner. the most serious crimes forming the top layer Since the violations are less serious, plea agreements and/or dismissals are a common occurrence. It stands to reason that any punishments levied at this tier are less severe when compared to other levels. As such, these cases and their outcomes typically receive little attention from society. The second layer from the bottom contains lesser felonies, or crimes that are more serious than misdemeanors, but not quite as serious as murder or rape. The damage or harm caused here is greater than the damage or harm caused in the first layer but is such that the case outcome may include a plea agreement, a reduction in time, restitution, and/or probation, because the harm was not as severe as the next level. The next layer includes serious felonies and crimes that cause more harm to society. As a result of the harm done and the seriousness of these crimes, prosecutors are more likely to seek punishments to the fullest extent of the law that may include much longer periods of incarceration, more substantial monetary fines, or even capital punishment. The top tier of the wedding cake model

Crime and Victimization 23 is reserved for the notorious cases involving celebrities, performers, athletes, or media sensations. Examples would include the murder trial against O.J. Simpson, the child abuse case against Michael Jackson, and the drinking and driving case against Paris Hilton. These cases are not typical of the criminal justice process and usually receive a great deal more attention and media coverage when compared to other cases (Meyer & Grant, 2003; Walker, 2001). The layers of the “wedding cake” illustrate two important points about the administration of justice and how cases are processed. First, cases at the bottom of the cake are treated much differently than cases at the top of the cake due to the dramatic differences in seriousness of the crime committed. Second, within each layer, it is assumed that the cases are similar and, thus, are handled similarly. Under the wedding cake model, minor cases typically receive less attention and are more abundant in number, while more serious offenses are less common, but are more likely to receive greater attention through all stages of the criminal justice process (Meyer & Grant, 2003; Walker, 2001).

Credits Fig. 1.1: Delphi234, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_in_the_ United_States.png. Copyright in the Public Domain. Fig. 1.2: Delphi234, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Property_Crime_in_the_ United_States.png. Copyright in the Public Domain. Fig. 1.3: http://www.bjs.gov/content/largechart.cfm. Copyright in the Public Domain.

24 Contemporary Criminal Justice