ACE

Category: Criminal Justice

  • The LGBTQIA+ Community and the Criminal Justice System

    The LGBTQIA+ Community and the Criminal Justice System

    Brief Historical Overview

    During the early years of Colonial America, most states used death as a punishment for individuals who engaged in sodomy, known as a “crime against nature,”. In 1641, the first legal code in New England, the Body of Laws and Liberties, stated that “if any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woman” then both of them should be put to death. Going against many of the other states, William Penn’s 1682 legal code in the Pennsylvania Quaker Colony became the first and only non-capital sodomy law, stating that any person convicted of sodomy was to be whipped, to forfeit a portion of their estate, and face imprisonment. However, this legal code did not last and, by 1693, all states deemed sodomy a capital offense. After the American Revolution and Pennsylvania’s reform, the 19th century found the penalty for sodomy reduced to hard labor and/or imprisonment. 

    Supreme Court Rulings

    During the 1900s, the LGBTQ+ community began to question the legality of laws and practices that targeted them. The 1958 Supreme Court case of One, Inc. v. Olesen reversed a circuit court ruling that found the publication of a magazine intended for a homosexual audience obscene and, therefore, not protected under the First Amendment. This case was the first time that the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding homosexuality, ultimately finding that “speech in favor of homosexuals is not inherently obscene.”

    In 1962, the adoption of the Model Penal Code in Illinois decriminalized the federal crime of sodomy, removing consensual sodomy from law. The creation of this code, along with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that held that the 14th Amendment “protected citizens from the government intruding on their sexual privacy within their own homes,” inspired eighteen states to change their sodomy laws. Although many states decriminalized sodomy, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick that “there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy,” allowing states to continue to target individuals for what they considered indecent acts.

    In 2003, the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas reversed the above ruling and held that “the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” Up until this year, same-sex marriage was not ruled upon federally, so there was a divide between states that allowed same-sex marriage and states that did not. However, the 2013 case of Windsor v. United States found section three of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutional, holding that the “federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections.”

    On June 26, 2015, the landmark ruling in Obergefell v Hodges held that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.” 

    The LGBTQIA+ community within Policing & the Prison System

    On June 28, 1969, the New York City Police Deparment raided Stonewall Inn, a well-known gay club at the time. Before the incident that led to the Stonewall riots, the police were known to raid many gay bars, harrassing LGBTQ+ individuals for displaying public affection. Although sodomy laws and the criminalization/denial of same-sex relations have since been found unconstitutional, the United States still sees a disportotionate amount of individuals within the LGBTQ+ community incarcerated and arrested. 


    In the United States in 2019, LGBTQ+ youth represented 9.5% of the general youth population, but were overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, making up 20% of the entire system. This high rate of representation is continued into adulthood, where it was also found that members of the LGBTQ+ community are 2.25 times as likely to be arrested then their straight counterparts. While gay and bisexual men are 1.35 times as likely to be arrested compared to heterosexual men, bisexual women and lesbians are 4 times as likely be arrested compared to heterosexual women. These numbers may be representative of homeless LGBT youth, who were kicked out by their families, and the lack of safety the individuals may feel within their school system. Furthermore, certain policing practices, such as enforcement of prostitution laws, cause individuals of the LGBTQ+ community to be disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. 

    The LGBTQ+ are also overrepresented in the prison system. While 5.5% of men incarcerated identify as bisexual or gay, 33.3% of women identify as bisexual and lesbian. A study found that people of the LGBTQ+ community are more likely to be sentenced to longer periods of incarceration than straight individuals. Within their experiences in prison, many LGBTQ+ individuals claim to have been subjected to “inhumane” treatment, such as longer prison sentences than their heterosexual counterparts and the higher possibility of being put in solitary confinement. Furthermore, individuals who engage in same-sex activity, compared to heterosexuals inmates, are 10 times more likely to sexually victimized by their peers and 2.6 times as likely by prison staff. 


  • Introduction to Private Prisons

    Introduction to Private Prisons

    In the 1970s, the US government declared a “war on drugs” involving tough policies on drug-related crimes. These policies included strong minimum mandatory sentences and a reallocation of funds to support the imprisonment of individuals, with the intention of lowering crime rates and protecting citizens. The US experienced a “fivefold increase in imprisonment rates.” Due to the rapid growth of the inmate population and increased costs within the US prisons, the government outsourced inmates to for-profit private prisons.

    Federal and state justice systems decide whether to place certain inmates in private or government prisons. 9% of prisoners in the US are held in privately owned facilities, with a majority having federal convictions, and 73% of immigration centers are private. Though private prisons are used by both the federal and state governments, 20 states do not rely on private prisons (see table below).

    When inmates are put in the care of private prisons, accountability of treatment shifts from the government to private organizations. Private prisons are able to decide acceptance into their facilities through contracts with the government. Usually, private prisons negotiate restrictions on certain inmates, as there is a cap on how much the prison is willing to spend on each inmate. For example, out of eight private prisons contracted by the state of Arizona, five of those did not accept inmates with “limited physical capacity and stamina,” severe physical illness, or chronic conditions, while none allowed inmates with “high need” mental health conditions. Some inmates who became sick were “returned to state prisons due to an increase of their medical scores that exceed[ed] contractual exclusions.” 

    Comparing Private and Public Prisons

    The private prison industry is hugely profitable nationwide. To illustrate, one of the largest companies that operates and manages private prisons in the United States, CoreCivic, reported a total revenue of $1.91 billion in the year 2020. There is not sufficient data to demonstrate that private prisons are less costly than public prisons. In 2007, the United States Government of Accountability Office wrote a report urging the Bureau of Prisons to collect better comparable data between private and public prisons to determine the impact of the difference in costs. Additionally, a study in Florida found that recidivism rates between private and public prisons were about the same. When comparing the recidivism rates of men in private prisons with those in public prisons, the difference proved to be statistically insignificant. However, when comparing the adult female group, it was found that the recidivism rate in private prisons was lower than in public prisons. Private prisons have also been found to be less safe than public prisons. In 2016, the Department of Justice found that “contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions.” These incidents included an increase in contraband, lockdown, inmate discipline, reports of incidents, telephone monitoring, and selected grievances. 

    Recent Developments

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed the executive order on “Reforming our Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities.” This order directs the Department of Justice to phase out the use of private prisons by not renewing contracts with these institutions, ensuring that correctional systems focus on rehabilitation and education rather than punishment and provide inmates with a safe working and living environment. The executive order states that “[t]o decrease incarceration levels, we must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing out the Federal Government’s reliance on privately operated criminal detention facilities.” Though this executive order will neither immediately decrease incarceration rates nor drastically change prison environments, it is a step in the direction of a more humane incarceration and rehabilitation experience. 

    Incarcerated Individuals Held in the Custody of Private Prisons by Jurisdiction in 2019

    Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics, 2018 and 2019

  • Introduction to the Death Penalty

    Introduction to the Death Penalty

    Individuals convicted of the death penalty are found guilty of capital crimes, most notably, murder, espionage, and treason. In the 1600s, the American colonies used the death penalty as a punishment for most serious crimes. By the 1800s, many began to oppose the death penalty because they felt that it was inhumane and unconstitutional. The 1972 U.S. Supreme Court Case Furman v. Georgia deemed the death penalty unconstitutional in it’s current state, and found that the legal process needed to be revised. This resulted in the emergence of the bifurcation procedure. The bifurcation procedure involves two trials. 

    1. The guilt phase: A jury decides an individual’s guilt or innocence.
    2. The penalty phase: Following the guilt phase, the jury receives additional information in the form of aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are meant to aid in deciding if the individual is deserving of death. Aggravating circumstances are situations or factors that increase the individual’s deservingness of death while mitigating circumstances are situations that decrease the individual’s deservingness of death.

    The death penalty is considered a state issue. 27 states use the death penalty and 23 states do not. The U.S. government has imposed moratorium in three death penalty states. This means that the individuals can still be sentenced to death but primarily only in the case of severe crimes, like murder.

    Source: ABC News

    In 2020, 18 countries implemented the death penalty, but most executions were concentrated in a few countries, namely China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt made up about 88% of executions. 

    Arguments for the Death Penalty 

    1. Deterrence: Death is notably the harshest punishment practiced by the criminal justice system.  It is seen as a general deterrence because it prevents individuals from committing capital crimes. Ernest van den Haag, a professor at Jurisprudence at Fordham University, studied the topic of deterrence in terms of the death penalty and believes that since death is the most feared event for most people, it must have some effect in deterring crime. Furthermore, the death penalty specfically deters any future crime because it takes away the criminal’s ability to commit crimes after they are dead.
    2. Retribution: Those who support the death penalty from a retributionist perspective do so because they find that it serves the purpose of justice. If the death penalty did not exist as a punishment to those who commit capital offenses, they believe society would succumb to crime and violence. This perspective also supports Hammurabi’s code, or “an eye for an eye,” meaning that a crime will be equally matched with a punishment in which the criminal suffers the same pain as the victim. If an individual commits murder, he or she shall be put to death as punishment.

    Arguments Against the Death Penalty

    1. Rebuttal to retribution: The legal system cannot rely on emotional impulses for solving problems because it is not a sufficient justification, especially for such a serious form of punishment. The criminal justice system should be held to higher standards that reflect a prioritization of life. Reducing the reasoning of taking an individual’s life to an emotional aspect is dehumanizing and it acts as a reflection of the entire justice system, and not just a focus on capital crimes punishment. 
    2. Innocence and wrongful convictions: There is strong evidence that proves some individuals have been wrongfully executed. According to the Execution Database, 185 people have been absolved from guilt and released from prison. Although some of the absolutions may have resulted from judicial and investigative errors, this number demonstrates the possibilty for error within the death penalty procedures.
    3. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: Defendants of disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to receive the death penalty than other groups. Black individuals convicted of a capital crime are 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white people. Since 1976, 158 black individuals have been executed by the death penalty for the murder of a white victim while 11 white people were executed for the murder of a black victim. The death penalty does not execute the worst offenders, rather it executes those who have the poorest defense. Those who do not have the resources to afford a lawyer are assigned a public defense lawyer, who is usually juggling multiple cases and unable to strongly focus on a single case.  
    4. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: Defendants of disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to receive the death penalty than other groups. Black individuals convicted of a capital crime are 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white people. Since 1976, 158 black individuals have been executed by the death penalty for the murder of a white victim while 11 white people were executed for the murder of a black victim. The death penalty does not execute tthe worst offenders, rather it executes those who have the poorest defense. Those who do not have the resources to afford a lawyer are assigned a public defense lawyer, who is usually juggling multiple cases and unable to strongly focus on a single one single case. 

    Source: Death Penalty Information Center
  • Perspectives on the Legalization of Marijuana

    Perspectives on the Legalization of Marijuana

    History of Drug-Related Offenses Enforcement

    The federal government of the United States began controlling the use or sale of illicit substances in 1914. At that time, bans were based on the connections a drug had with immigrant or minority communities. In the 1930s, the U.S. began to impose criminal penalties for narcotics, particularly cocaine. Marijuana, heavily and negatively associated with Mexican immigrants, became illegal under federal law with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. In the 1970s, the U.S. government cracked down on marijuana because of its association with the Vietnam War protests and the anti-establishment “counterculture.” Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971 and illicit substance criminalization peaked in the 1990s. Recently, state governments have begun to decriminalize marijuana. While the federal government has yet to change its official stance, it has also not taken any steps to intervene with state decisions.

    Statistical Data

    Throughout the era of marijuana criminalization, poor and minority communities have faced the most stringent policing, despite similar rates of drug use across all groups. Black individuals were over three times as likely as white individuals to be arrested for marijuana offenses. In states that have decriminalized marijuana use, minority groups are disproportionately charged with the offenses that remain illegal (such as unlicensed selling or underage use).

    According to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, 60% of American adults believe that marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use, and an additional 31% say it should be legal only for medical purposes. Support varies by race, age, and political affiliation. Young people, political moderates, and liberals are more supportive of marijuana legalization, while older people, Asians, and conservatives tend to express more opposition.

    Arguments for Legalization of Marijuana

    Advocates for the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana often point to how such changes would ease the strain on the U.S. criminal justice system and reduce incarceration rates by freeing those who have been incarcerated for drug-related offences, a majority of whom belong to poor and/or minority groups. With many American prisons overcrowded, advocates are calling for a solution that would decarcerate nonviolent offenders and reduce socioeconomic disparities between races caused by the United States’ history of targeting Black and Brown communities with drug-related arrests. 

    In addition, pro-legalization activists point to the high costs and low rewards of enforcing marijuana bans. Even as a growing number of states have turned to legalization or decriminalization, FBI data shows that 40% of U.S. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana-related offenses, with 92% of those just for possession. According to studies of youth in the U.S. and Australia, prohibition does not deter people from using marijuana. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 93% of supporters of legalization agreed that law enforcement budgets and personnel could be better utilized in response to violent offenses rather than victimless crimes.

    Furthermore, pro-legalization forces argue that the legalization of marijuana would deter drug syndicates who have benefited from secrecy and shadows. When drugs like marijuana are prohibited, producers and dealers can charge more and settle disputes with violence, knowing that their consumers cannot turn to law enforcement for help. Legalizing marijuana would allow consumers to charge bad actors in the criminal justice system without fear of incarceration. It would also allow a legal marketplace to grow, which is regulated for safety.

    Legalizing marijuana also allows for the taxing the sale of marijuana. According to the Urban Institute, Colorado and Washington (some of the earliest states to legalize) now receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue annually from marijuana sales equating to almost 1% of their annual revenue. In 2020, California raised almost a billion dollars from marijuana taxes.

    Arguments Against Legalization of Marijuana

    Many detractors are not convinced that legalizing marijuana would be beneficial—for American society or the criminal justice system. Anti-legalization forces strongly believe that legalization of marijuana would not alleviate stress on law enforcement resources, but rather open up new avenues of danger. According to a 2019 Gallup poll, 91% of legalization’s opponents are concerned about an increase in car accidents due to driver intoxication. This possibility is likely to put a strain on law enforcement officers, courts, and jails, as well as reduce public safety. Opponents believe  marijuana use leads to the use of stronger, often illegal drugs, which remains a criminal offense. In addition, opponents say legalization comes with its own set of regulations and criminal offenses. They point out that states and cities would have to pay to train officers to identify violations and then provide funding to actually enforce the new rules if marijuana-related crime is to be legalized. Opponents also disagree with activists with respect to impact on drug syndicates, arguing that legalization would merely open up a new black market.

    It seems likely that states will continue to legalize and decriminalize marijuana. Nineteen states have already passed laws that legalize and regulate the cannabis industry, four of which were enacted in 2021. In addition, possession of marijuana has been legalized or decriminalized in thirty-two states and in Washington, D.C. 

    Image copyright DISA, June 2021

  • No Knock Warrants

    No Knock Warrants

    Historical Context

    No-knock warrants were established in the 1970s to combat the War on Drugs, “a series of federal and local policies aimed at cracking down on recreational drug use.” Before no-knock warrants, knock and announce warrants were mandatory for law enforcement to enter a home. The origins of such warrants come from Semayne’s case in 1604 and Miller vs. the United States in 1985, which prohibited citizens from being arrested in their homes without their given notice of authority and purpose from officers. Eventually, Wilson v. Arkansas in 1995 and Richard v. Wisconsin in 1997 made exceptions for unnecessary announcements.

    No-knock warrants can only be issued by a judge and allow law enforcement to enter the property of a resident without announcing who they are. These warrants are typically issued if officers have probable cause to believe that: 

    (a) notice will likely lead to the quick and easy destruction or disposal of evidence subject to seizure, 

    (b) notice will endanger the life of the officer or another person, 

    (c) notice will allow the person who is to be arrested to escape, or 

    (d) if such a notice is useless. 

    Therefore, it is at the discretion of the judge and law enforcement to determine probable cause, the type of warrant, and its execution. 

    No-knock warrants have been controversial since the 1970s because the execution of such warrants is dangerous for officers and civilians. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are examples of state self-defense laws in the United States where civilians have the right to defend themselves using deadly force in their homes and surrounding areas. Standing your ground is legal in 23 states. Since 30% of Americans own guns, law enforcement officials who use no-knock warrants and civilians are at an increased risk for harm. 94 civilians and 13 law enforcement officers died in no-knock and quick-knock raids in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016, and many more were seriously injured. No-knock warrants also add financial strain to civilians because they are responsible for repairing property damage resulting from no-knock warrants.

    In the past four decades no-knock warrants have been used with increasing frequency. In the early 1980s, no-knock or quick-knock warrants were used about 1,500 times. By 2010, no-knock warrants were used about 60,000-70,000 times. 

    Breonna Taylor Incident

    On March 13, 2020, seven officers  entered the home of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor while she was sleeping alongside her partner, Kenneth Walker. The officers used a no-knock warrant, expecting to find money and drugs belonging to a previous partner of Breonna at her residence. Unbeknownst to these officers, her previous partner was put into police custody earlier that same night.

    After repeatedly crying out and hearing no response, Walker grabbed his registered gun as the police entered the home with a battery ram. While Mattingly claimed to have announced police identity, Walker along with other witnesses did not report hearing such an announcement. Walker aimed his gun at what he thought was an intruder, and fired once. Sergeant Mattingly, Officer Myles Cosgrove, and Detective Brett Hankison fired a total of 32 rounds, six of which hit Taylor. Hankinson was later charged for “wanton endangerment” after firing into the apartment of one of Taylor’s neighbors. 

    No-Knock Warrant Reform 

    On June 6, 2020, Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Justice for Breonna Taylor Act,” federally banning the use of no-knock warrants. In addition, this act would ban the use of no-knock warrants in state and local law enforcement agencies that receive Department of Justice funding. Although the bill received bipartisan support, it did not receive a vote in Congress.

    Kentucky lawmakers have passed a series of bills concerning these warrants. “Breonna’s Law” was passed in June 2020  by Louisville Metro Council. It bans the use of no-knock warrants and requires officers to wear body cameras during searches in Louisville.  Two months earlier, Senate Bill 4 was signed into law by Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, banning the use of no-knock warrants except in certain situations. Many other states and jurisdictions have followed Kentucky’s example and made similar changes in police legislature.

    Despite these changes to policing, many oppose the total banning of no-knock warrants. The Director of the Virginia State Police Association Wayne Huggins stated that the element of surprise is one of the advantages of no-knock warrants. Others find such warrants effective in deterring crime. NYPD commissioner Dermot Shae rejected the call to ban no-knock warrants because they kept the city of New York safe. NYPD claims no-knock warrants are primarily used to target guns. Of the 1,800 search warrants issued in 2020 by the NYPD, 1,100 were no-knock warrants. They led to the seizure of more than 800 guns. 

  • Introduction to the United States Prison System

    Introduction to the United States Prison System

    Historical Roots of Incarceration

    Prior to the American Revolution, a majority of colonies used confinement in prison dungeons and jails to house individuals awaiting trial. Once a verdict was delivered, a person found guilty was punished in one of the following ways: fine, public shaming, public chastisement, or death. In 1790, the Pennsylvanian Quakers established the first American prison, Walnut Street, which became used as a form of punishment rather than temporary confinement. Due to the success of the Walnut Street prison, New York reduced capital crimes and built the Auburn prison. While the Walnut Street prison prohibited inmate interaction, the Auburn prison congregate system allowed inmates to work alongside one another silently during the day and confined them to solitary confinement at night. Critics of both prison systems argued against the lack of inmate interaction. This caused prisons to revoke the ban on speaking by the 1850s. 

    ​​
    After the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, the 1860s saw a disproportionate number of black people incarcerated in the south. Newly freed slaves became victims of convict leasing, a legal way to arrest individuals, sentence them to labor, and then lease that labor to private establishments. In the 1871 case, Ruffin v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court declared an inmate a “slave of the state” with rights only given to them by the state. Convict leasing was outlawed in 1928. 

    Until the late 19th century, prisons were run solely by state governments. However, after the Three Prisons Act of 1891, the United States authorized three federal prisons to run with limited oversight by the Department of Justice. In 1930, the Bureau of Prisons was created to “assume oversight, management, and administration” of all federal prisons at the time. They now operate 122 federal prisons. 

    Alternatives to Incarceration

    Known as the “Irish system,” indeterminate sentences provide a range of imprisonment for certain criminal offenses. In the 1800s, inmates who maintained good behavior and hard work were released sooner and those who did not had prolonged sentences. In 1907, New York established the concept of parole after indeterminate sentences proved to be successful in decreasing crime. In the current system, an inmate may be released under the supervision of a parole officer if they have observed the rules of the prison, are not a danger to the public, and are unlikely to commit future offenses. The creation of parole established more alternatives to incarceration: 

    1. Probation releases a defendant into society with restrictions set forth by the court, and under the supervision of a probation officer, in place of imprisonment. If the individual violates their probation, they may be sentenced to imprisonment.
    2. Community service is unpaid work designed to benefit the community that has been harmed by the individual’s actions. Community service is commonly sentenced alongside other forms of punishment. 
    3. Home Confinement, commonly known as house arrest, requires people found guilty to wear an ankle monitor that ensures they remain at home and in certain pre-approved areas for the duration of their sentence. 
    4. Fines require the defendant to pay a fee depending on income and seriousness of the offense while restitution requires the defendant to pay for a victim’s costs as a result of the crime. 
    5. Treatment programs are court-supervised health programs that provide services relating to mental health and drug dependency. People who committed sex offenses are commonly placed on probation and ordered to complete sex offender treatment. 

    War on Drugs

    After Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971, many reform acts were established in order to reduce illegal drug use and trade. The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act abolished federal parole, reduced good time, and established determinate sentences. The 1986 Anti Drug Abuse Act established minimum sentences for criminal drug offenses and raised funding for drug enforcement. As a result of the “war on drugs” reform acts, the incarcerated population ballooned, leading to higher costs and overcrowding. To solve the overcrowding problem private prisons were created in the 1980s. Now, the United States has begun to pass reform acts to reverse the effects of the late 20th century “war on drugs.” The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduces the penalties for crack cocaine offenses. The First Step Act of 2018 shortens the mandatory sentences for minor drug offenses and requires the federal “three strike rule” to impose a 25-year sentence instead of a life sentence after three convictions. 

  • Introduction to Policing

    Introduction to Policing

    Historical Roots of Policing

    The first examples of policing existed in Colonial America, where informal, for-profit groups like the Night Watch attempted to discourage gambling and prostitution. In the 19th century, the US adopted the British system of policing which involved a professional, full-time, and central-organized police force. This force focused on preventing crime and preserving order. Boston was the first United States city to establish a modern police force in 1838. Commercial shipping was central to Boston’s economy, and merchant owners were concerned about cargo security. The police force was created to protect the merchant ships in the area. Shortly after, many Southern cities created police forces to catch runaway slaves and prevent revolutions. By the start of the 20th century, most major cities had police forces that focused on preserving social control and the economy, such as protecting the workforce from labor-unions and immigrants, and preventing labor strikes. Precinct captains and sergeants were selected by local political parties, and political interests subsequently influenced police activity. 

    During the 1920s, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover set out to better police forces by creating the 1929 Wickersham Commission to investigate ineffectiveness within law enforcement. The findings of this commission led to greater separation between police forces and political parties, and increased training for new officers. Police departments began to unionize and introduced the community policing model. Community Policing strengthened the ties between law enforcement and the communities they served, placing an emphasis on forming relationships with community leaders and discussing pressing issues within their communities. This is still the most widely used policing model today.

    State and Local Law Enforcement

    Non-federal police departments can be broken up into four subgroups: 

    1. Municipality departments, which govern cities, townships, or tribal areas, are responsible for the preservation of property, criminal investigations, and protection of life in their respective jurisdiction. 
    2. Sheriffs’ departments, run by the county, perform jail operations, court-related duties, and other law enforcement activities depending on department policies, such as, serving orders of protection and transporting prisoners. 
    3. State and highway police jurisdiction depends on the local legislative mandate. State officers have jurisdiction throughout their state; however, their duties depend on a state mandate. Highway officers are given specific duties to perform over highways, including traffic enforcement and/or criminal investigations. 
    4. Special departments that can include universities, parks and recreation areas, and transportation facilities. Their duties vary depending on mandates, but usually include traffic enforcement and investigations. These departments often cooperate with their partner agencies.

    Federal and International Law Enforcement

    The United States has two main federal law enforcement departments: the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. 

    The Department of Justice houses a variety of agencies with different specializations.

    • The U.S. Marshal Service apprehends federal fugitives, operates the Witness Protection Program, transportes federal prisoners in the judicial process, and manages seized assets that were acquired through illegal activities.
    • The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives enforce controlled substance regulations and laws and investigate the unlawful use, manufacture, and trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, respectively. 
    • The FBI has jurisdiction to “investigate all federal crimes that are not assigned exclusively to another federal agency.” Examples of these are threats to national security, violent crimes against interstate travelers, serial killers, white-collar crimes, and hate groups that pose a credible threat. In addition, the FBI investigates missing children, aids local law enforcement agencies upon request, and manages the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This program centralizes crime statistics submitted by various U.S. law enforcement agencies.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created to strengthen U.S. borders and prevent attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11. It consolidated 22 federal agencies and departments, becoming the largest federal law enforcement agency. These agencies include the Federal Protective Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Secret Service.

    • The Federal Protective Service is tasked with protecting critical infrastructures of the U.S. government and investigating any criminal activity against these locations. 
    • ICE and CBP are similar since both operate at the border and are tasked with deterring and investigating cross-border criminal activity. 
    • The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, and foreign visitors of importance. They are also in charge of investigating threats to United States financial organizations. These include credit card fraud, ransomware, and computer network breaches. The Secret Service also offers forensics assistance to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

    Finally, when crime is committed in more than one country, the International Police Organization (INTERPOL) aids and connects the participating law enforcement agencies. INTERPOL was created in 1914 as world leaders sought a more integrated way to solve crimes across countries. The organization consists of 194 countries who share intelligence, forensics services, and assistance to fellow countries. Its main mission is to combat terrorism, cyber-crime, and organized crime, which are the gravest threats to international security. Its jurisdiction is created through mutual agreement with the member countries.

  • Disenfranchisement of Convicted Felons and Incarcerated People

    Disenfranchisement of Convicted Felons and Incarcerated People

    Disenfranchisement, or the deprivation of the right to vote, of criminals is a practice adopted from English law which many states integrated into their constitutions after the Civil War. Every state except Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., enforces some restriction on voting for incarcerated persons. The Tenth Amendment gives states jurisdiction over their election and voting laws, so every state has its own policy on felon disenfranchisement.

    Within the range of policies, 20 states restore voting rights upon an inmate’s release, 17 require completion of parole/probation, and 11 states have additional requirements including personal grants of clemency from the governor. To learn about your state’s policy and how it compares to the rest of the nation, see this interactive map designed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    De Facto Disenfranchisement

    Today, felon disenfranchisement occurs mostly through “de facto disenfranchisement,’’ meaning those impacted could still legally cast a ballot, but are unable to due to other obstacles. Pretrial detention is not legal grounds for disenfranchisement in any state, yet many people held in jails awaiting conviction are not given the chance to vote. Misinformation spreads easily because those working with incarcerated individuals receive limited, if any, training on their state’s felony disenfranchisement laws. Incarcerated individuals are often overlooked during election season, so efforts are not made to register and educate incarcerated individuals. In addition, many of the materials needed to vote, like voter registration forms, mail-in ballot applications, and information regarding candidates and ballot measures, are available online. Inmates often have limited internet access, so they have to submit physical applications through the postal service. This longer process can cause inmates to miss important deadlines for registering with their state and casting their ballots.

    Felon Disenfranchisement and Socioeconomic Status

    African Americans are disenfranchised due to felony conviction at a rate four times greater than other racial groups. This is partly due to a disproportionate incarceration rate of Black versus white Americans: Black men and women comprise about 13% of the US  population, but account for 35 and 44% of the incarcerated populations, respectively. Hispanic Americans are imprisoned 1.4 times more than whites. Incarceration rates for Latinx/Hispanic Americans is likely understated as some states’ ethnicity reporting includes Hispanic inmates within the white prison population, and four states—Alabama, Maryland, Montana, Vermont—do not record racial/ethnic data at all. 

    Low income Americans are also overrepresented in the nation’s jails and prisons. Some states like Florida and Alabama require payment of LFOs (legal financial obligations) before re-enfranchising a felon, so low economic standing—perpetuated during incarceration periods—leads to the suspension of voting rights. Current policies restricting voting rights of incarcerated people and convicted felons affect people of color and low-income Americans at higher rates than white and high income citizens. The states without felon voting restriction, Maine and Vermont, are overwhelmingly white compared to the rest of the country, meaning their universal suffrage status still favors whites over people of color in their communities. 

    Arguments For and Against Felon Voting Restrictions

    Although it has recently gained momentum as a topic of public discourse, much of the public believes felons should not retain voting rights. A 2019 poll conducted by Hill-HarrisX showed 69% of Americans believe incarcerated felons should not be able to vote. Debates around the four categories of restrictions—de facto, during incarceration, parole/probation, and following the completion of additional requirements—all follow the same logic. 

    Those who believe that felons should not be able to vote often base their arguments on their interpretation of what it means to vote. Proponents for felon voting restrictions argue that voting is a privilege, rather than an absolute right of citizenship. Once a person is incarcerated, they lose that privilege to vote. By committing a crime, a person has chosen not to follow the law, and has no place deciding the nation’s future. Those who support disenfranchisement argue that those who have violated the law in a manner serious enough to warrant arrest, detention, and probation should not have a role in shaping the laws for everyone else, especially citizens who have not violated any laws. It is argued that individuals who have committed serious crimes do not meet the minimum standards of conduct and responsibility required to vote. 

    Opponents of restrictions on incarcerated individuals believe that voting is a fundamental right which can’t be taken away, even if one is convicted of a crime. Especially in cases of de facto disenfranchisement, they see these restrictions as unjust because they prevent people who would normally cast a ballot from participating in elections. They argue that if under the law a person is allowed to vote, they should not face additional obstacles to casting their ballot. In addition, some feel that extra effort should be made to reintegrate felons into society, and participating in the democratic process is an important part of existing in the community.

    In addition to those two black and white perspectives, some believe that incarcerated felons should not be able to vote, but should be allowed after they have paid their debt to society. They view incarceration as a time when the right to vote is limited along with the freedom of movement, but that should only occur for a finite period of time. In 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 which restored voting rights to felons who had completed their prison sentences (with the exception of those convicted of murder or felony sexual offense). The Florida legislature weakened the amendment by including a provision that all LFOs had to be paid in addition. Many were outraged by this decision, because they felt like the voters of Florida had made a decision about when voting rights should be reinstated and the legislature had reworked it, pushing back the finish line.

    Effects of Disenfranchising Felons

    Preventing felons from voting disproportionately impacts communities of color and can result in misrepresentative election results. This is particularly true for Black Americans, with more than two million being prevented from voting. Advocates for enfranchising felons argue that restricting voting may lead to skewed election results. Local, state, and federal elections can be decided by extremely small margins and the inclusion of citizens who were previously unable to vote could greatly influence these outcomes.
    Beyond deciding elections, disenfranchisement of incarcerated people affects the ways in which communities are afforded representation. The Census Bureau counts incarcerated people as residents of the location of their detention facility. When it comes to redrawing congressional districts or allocating representatives in local weighted voting systems, for example, the incarcerated population is counted towards the population tally but are not able to participate in the decision-making process. That is, incarcerated individuals swell the data upon which representatives are delegated to certain communities without being able to offer their opinions about candidates. This grants a disproportionate amount of influence to citizens living outside of detention centers, undermining the premise that each voice matters equally in a democratic election.