AN OVERVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

(Chapter 1 in Crime and Justice in American Society

Shelden et al., Waveland Press, 2008)

On April 19, 1989, a group of approximately 40 boys gathered for an evening of “wilding” in New York’s Central Park[1]. They harassed passersby, beat one man and doused him with beer, stomped and kicked another, and groped a female bicyclist. After seeing a police officer, the boys split into smaller groups. Five of the boys were eventually arrested and confessed to brutally beating and raping a 28-year-old jogger. The victim almost died, faced many months of rehabilitative therapy, and suffered amnesia. The case received national media attention. Within a year, the boys were tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. Thirteen years later, DNA tests and the confession of a known rapist and murderer resulted in the convictions being overturned. They had not, in fact, committed or participated in the attack. The exonerations raised questions about the New York City Police Department’s handling of the investigation, including the possibility of coerced confessions and the role of racism.[2]

The Central Park Jogger case illustrates many of the issues encountered in an exploration of the criminal justice system: crime, a victim, defendants, police, courts, and corrections. It also raises the issues of technology and evolving investigatory techniques, wrongful convictions, juvenile delinquency, the roles of race and poverty, and the public’s fascination with violent crime. Most importantly, this case exemplifies the fact that cursory examinations can lead to faulty interpretations. To fully understand the U.S. system of criminal justice, it is necessary to do more than scratch the surface.

Americans are fascinated by crime, especially violent crime. We are both fearful of and titillated by violence. We have watched in fascination as many “celebrated” cases unfold. For example, millions watched as O. J. Simpson was acquitted of double murder charges. The nation was shocked by the arrest of Dennis Rader, a local church leader, for the serial murders known as BTK (Bind–Torture–Kill). We were saddened by and collectively continue to hope for justice in the murder of six-year-old Jon Benet Ramsey. The nation watched as Andrea Yates was arrested for the murders of her five young children. We continued to watch as she was convicted, retried, and found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Fictional accounts of crime and criminal trials are consistently on best-seller lists and are among the highest grossing movies. Millions of Americans watch television crime dramas regularly. CSI, Cops, Law & Order, and Cold Case are consistently very highly rated television shows. The popularity of books, movies, and television dramas about crime illustrate people’s fascination with the subject, particularly violent crime.

The picture of the U.S. criminal justice system presented by both the news and entertainment media is grossly distorted. Celebrated cases are highly unusual and completely atypical examples of the daily operation of the criminal justice system. While gory headlines capture public attention, literally millions of routine cases are quickly processed rather unceremoniously through the various stages of the criminal justice system. Media overreporting of violent crimes increases the public’s concern about and fear of crime

The criminal justice system is a formal mechanism of social control. In theory, it is designed to prevent crime, enforce laws, and mete out justice. The three components of the system are: law enforcement, courts, and corrections. In the United States, the activities of the organizations within each component must perform duties that fit into the framework of laws and procedures that protect individual rights. It is something of a misnomer to refer to the criminal justice “system”; it could more accurately be called a “loosely articulated hierarchy of subsystems.”^[3]

You probably already have some ideas about the criminal justice system. You have seen police cars driving around; you may even have been stopped for speeding. Perhaps you visited a courthouse or toured a correctional facility. You may have helped a friend post bail or visited a juvenile court during your high school days. In all likelihood you probably have formed some impressions from your experiences and/or the experiences of your friends and family. Watching the fictional portrayals on television or movies could also have affected your perceptions. As you may suspect, there are many complex issues attached to each element of the system and its subsystems. Understanding the U.S. criminal justice system requires taking a journey, with many detours along the way. The point of departure is the Constitution.

The Constitutional Basis of the Criminal Justice System

The ultimate source of authority for our criminal justice system is the United States Constitution, which provides the foundation for the creation of laws, or “formal statements of authority that are exercised by the state.”^[4]

The Constitution outlined three separate branches of government designed to operate independently. The separation of powers works as a source of checks and balances on governmental power and authority. The legislative branch is where laws are written, defining what behaviors are prohibited as well as the appropriate punishments. The bulk of criminal acts are violations of state and local laws. Without criminal law (discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 3), there would be no purpose for a criminal justice system, which in the United States is more precisely described as a dual justice systems We have state and federal legislatures, state and federal law enforcement systems, state and federal courts, and state and federal prison systems.

The judicial branch includes the U.S. Supreme Court, state supreme courts, and various appellate courts. This branch interprets laws and determines whether or not they meet the requirements of the Constitution. The executive branch is comprised of public officials such as presidents, governors, mayors, etc. These officials determine and implement official responses to new laws. They determine the agencies and personnel who will be responsible for enforcing laws. The police fall under the administrative control of this branch.

Executive branch officials and the courts are given authority, through provisions in the Constitution, to enforce and or interpret laws. Those provisions are founded on the principles of security for individuals and for the nation as a whole. The criminal justice system is the instrument designated by executive branch officials to enforce laws that pertain to criminal behavior. The criminal justice system is the apparatus used to enforce the standards of conduct, reflected in criminal law, established by a legislative body for a given society.

Thumbnail Sketch of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is very complex. It is much more than simply making an arrest, taking the defendant to court, and sentence her or him to prison or probation. Each subsequent chapter will explore in much more detail the details of this system. For now, however, let us take a very brief view of the system’s major components.

The Police

There are roughly 20,000 police departments, ranging from small town departments of one officer to large urban departments with 1,000 or more officers. As of March, 2003, there were more than 1 million law enforcement employees with a monthly payroll of more than $4 billion.[5] The federal law enforcement system includes such well-known agencies as the FBI, National Park Service, Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Postal Inspector, and many more. Law enforcement on the state level includes the state police or highway patrol, drug control agencies, fish and game control agencies, investigative bureaus (the state equivalent of the FBI), and others. County and municipal police agencies are by far the largest law enforcement group. These agencies include city police, county sheriff’s offices, constables, and village police departments.

The police engage in a wide variety of duties, many of which do not relate directly to the control of crime. The essential role of the police officer is both proactive and reactive. Proactive duties include routine patrol in communities to identify potential criminal activities and to maintain order. Reactive duties take place after a crime has occurred. Typical activities include arriving at the scene of the incident, interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, attempting to locate and/or identify a suspect, making the arrest, and transporting the suspect to the local jail. Police officers often testify at various pretrial hearings and trials.

The Courts

In the United States there are two major court systems: federal and state. Within each system there are two general types of courts: trial and appellate, which make up the dual court system. Trial courts hear cases and decide on guilt or innocence. Parties convicted at trial can appeal the decision to an appellate court. The primary function of the appellate court is to review the original trial to make sure it correctly interpreted applicable law.^[6] In essence, the appellate courts police the behavior of the trial courts. The decision is made by a group of judges; there are no witnesses and no jury. Appellate judges generally provide a written opinion (unlike trial court judges), which can then become a precedent for future cases.

The bulk of criminal and civil cases in the United States come before the state court system. Most criminal cases are heard in trial courts of limited jurisdiction, or what are more commonly known as lower or inferior courts. These courts are variously known as municipal, justice of the peace, city, magistrate, or county courts. They are usually created by local governments, either at the city or county levels and are not part of the larger state court system. These lower courts handle misdemeanor offenses, traffic cases, city ordinance cases, and minor civil disputes. They are also responsible for initial appearances and preliminary hearings in felony cases. They account for the largest number of courts, roughly 14,000, and collectively represent 84% of all state judicial bodies. Cases in lower courts are heard in a rather perfunctory manner and often take as little as one minute, leading to the metaphor “assembly line justice.”

The Prison System

The prison system consists of a vast array of institutions designed to supervise and control convicted persons. Jails and prisons are two major institutions within the prison system. The primary difference is that jails house inmates for shorter periods of time. About half of jail inmates are awaiting a court appearance or trial, and the other half are serving sentences of less than one year. Prisons house those serving sentences of one year or more. In some instances, and generally for logistical or economic reasons, some convicted persons do much of there prison sentence in jails due to overcrowded prison facilities. There are now more than 1700 and more than 3,300 jails.^[7] Prisons and jails are the most recognizable components of the correctional system, but it also includes probation and parole.

Probation is the result of a court action. The court suspends the sentence to jail or prison has been suspended for a certain period of time. During the court-prescribed time of probation, a probation officer supervises the defendant in the community. As long as the defendant complies with the rules set forth by the court, he or she will not be incarcerated.

Parole is a post-prison status, a prison administrative action that follows a period of incarceration. The paroled individual is released prior to the expiration of a sentence and serves the remaining time under the supervision of a parole officer. In some jurisdictions, probationers and parolees report to the same caseworker, who is responsible for supervising and controlling their behavior.

This very brief overview introduced some of the components of a very complicated system. Two models are frequently used to illustrate what takes place in the criminal justice system.

Two Traditional Models of the Criminal Justice System

The President’s Commission Model

More than thirty years ago the President’s Commission on Law and Administration of Justice provided perhaps the most famous depiction of the criminal justice system. Figure 1.1 shows the sequential stages of the decision-making process.

Figure 1.1

The steps below summarize the stages of the system.

1.      Investigation. An investigation begins when a crime is reported to or discovered by police. Importantly, police do not witness most crimes; instead, they depend on members of the public to report infractions. Investigation involves collecting physical evidence as well as interviewing witnesses and possible suspects.

2.      Arrest. When evidence indicates that a certain person was responsible for an offense the police take the suspect into custody.

3.      Booking (record of the arrest). The suspect is fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned.

4.      Charging. This marks the entrance of the prosecutor, who determines there is probable cause for the arrest—if it is reasonable to believe that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it.

5.      Initial Appearance. Within a few hours of the defendant’s arrest, he or she is taken before a judge. The judge advises the defendant of his/her rights, gives formal notice of charges, appoints counsel if necessary, and determines if the defendant is eligible for pretrial release. If so, bail is set.

6.      Preliminary Hearing/Grand Jury. In about half the states, preliminary hearings are formal proceedings during which a judge determines whether or not there is probable cause that the defendant should be subject to a criminal trial. Other states use a grand jury system for the same purpose.

7.      Information/Indictment. The formal charging document prepared by the prosecutor outlines the specific charges. Indictment is the term used when a grand jury charges a defendant with a specific crime.

8.      Arraignment. An arraignment is a court proceeding during which the information or indictment is read to the defendant in open court. The defendant may enter a plea. Most defendants plead guilty and accept a prearranged plea bargain. It is very rare that a case proceeds to trial.

9.      Trial. Less than 15% of cases reach this point. Trials are adversarial processes during which the prosecution and defense try to convince a judge or jury that their version of events is true. The state holds the burden of proof and must convince the judge or jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

10.  Sentencing. When a defendant pleads or is found guilty the judge hands down a formal sentence. Sentencing guidelines exist, but judges have some discretion depending on how the laws are written. Sanctions can include: probation, incarceration, fines, and community service.

11.  Appeal. This option is available to defendants who are found guilty. Appeals are filed before review courts and generally claim that the trial court did not follow proper procedure and/or that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated.

12.  Corrections. The correctional system (probation, intermediate sanctions such as community service, jails, prisons) is charged with carrying out the sentence.

13.  Release. When the defendant has completed the sentence, he or she is released. If released early (parole), the defendant continues under the supervision of the system and must comply with rules or risk being incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence.

The model provides a framework that identifies general patterns and implies interrelationships among the components as cases flow through the system. It suggests an efficient, single system in which all cases are processed in the same manner.^[8] It is both a description of how the system is supposed to work and a prescription for how it can be improved. Often the system is fragmented—perhaps more nearly a nonsystem with little coordination among the different parts. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness often dictate outcomes rather than justice.

The social context of the system—how and why cases move through the system the way they do—is missing from the model. There are no depictions of the roles race, gender and social class as determinant factors at the various stages. Most importantly, it ignores one very crucial stage that precedes all others: the legislation that defines what behaviors are regarded as criminal.

The “Wedding Cake” Model

Samuel Walker discusses the wedding cake model of criminal justice, originally developed in 1981 by Lawrence Friedman and Robert Percival in their book, The Roots of Justice. ^[9] The model emphasizes that the system handles different kinds of cases differently; it depicts four layers or tiers of cases (see figure 1.2).

The original model put all felony cases in one category. As Walker notes, Michael and Don Gottfredson refined the model in 1988 in their book Decision Making in Criminal Justice by dividing felonies into two tiers.[10] The second layer consists of “heavy–duty,” serious felonies. These cases are violent crimes committed by defendants with long criminal histories. Most importantly, the victims are unknown to the defendant.

The third layer involves what many lawyers call “lightweight” felonies. Although the crimes may be identical to those in the second layer, the prosecutor decides they are less serious, often because the defendant has no prior convictions or because of the relationship between the victim and defendant. If a prosecutor believes that the particular crime was a dispute among acquaintances, the felony will be treated as more ordinary than “real” crime, where the perpetrator is a stranger to the victim. Many rape cases and serious cases of spousal abuse are deemed third-layer felonies because the victims and offenders know one another.[11]

Walker describes the fourth layer as “a world unto itself.”[12] These cases fill the lower courts. Millions of misdemeanor cases are handled by the criminal justice system each year. The bulk of the cases are public-order violations, such as drunkenness, disorderly conduct, or minor thefts like shoplifting. As mentioned earlier, the metaphor of  “assembly-line justice” is frequently applied to the procedures of these courts. Many defendants are arraigned en masse without the assistance of a lawyer, and each case is disposed of in a manner of minutes. Te usual sentence is a light fine; jail time is rare. Malcolm Feeley entitled his book about the handling of cases in lower criminal courts The Process Is the Punishment.^[13]

While the wedding cake model offers an accurate typology of cases processed through the system, its primary focus is on the decisions of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. We glimpse the role of power and status in such decisions, but the factors of race, class, and gender are not explicit.. Neither the President’s Commission model nor the wedding cake model focus on the lawmaking process and the social inequalities in the surrounding economic and political systems in which laws are forged to explain why minority and poor defendants are disproportionately processed and incarcerated, we need another model.

The Criminalization Model

The Criminalization model (see figure 1.3) explores the role of social class in the criminal justice system. It recognizes that the system is used to control certain groups of people—accomplished by criminalizing their behaviors and then focusing on them for arrest and incarceration. Social class is the first key component of the model. The higher one’s status in the social hierarchy, the more power one wields. Power is the ability to get what you want. The greater amount of money and other resources at one’s disposal, the greater the likelihood of getting one’s way, in spite of opposition. This applies to being healthy, getting a good education, becoming wealthy, getting elected to office, and to thousands of other opportunities. Access to these opportunities depends largely on social class. As one writer puts it, class counts.^[14]

Social class determines almost everything that matters in a capitalist society—including criminal justice. One’s social class position primarily determines whether or not certain behaviors are considered criminal; whether or not one is arrested and charged with a crime; whether or not the defense lawyer prevails at trial. An inverse relationship exists between social class and the probability of contact with the system. Quite simply, the odds of being arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison are greater the lower one is in the social class hierarchy. This is particularly true for racial minorities.^[15]

The criminalization model recognizes the major stages of the criminal justice process. It also considers the political process that defines certain behaviors as criminal. It recognizes the role of powerful interest groups in determining the administrative and legislative responses to those behaviors, and it explores the role of criminal justice officials who assume the responsibility for the interpretation and implementation of those policies.

In addition to the typical stages set forth in traditional models of criminal justice, this model examines the likelihood of reentry to the system following release. We argue that reentry is not necessarily because of new crimes committed or even because of increased attention by criminal justice officials. It is frequently because of diminished opportunities resulting from social stigmatization and alienation.^[16]

Defining “Criminals”

Other models of the system begin with the discovery of a crime; the criminalization model begins with the political process. Certain behaviors and groups are defined as criminal; offenders are presented as being different from other members of society. Our society views criminals as social trash—rabble who have proven that they cannot live in a civil society.[17] Modern crime policies have effectively created a criminal/noncriminal dichotomy.

 Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans have participated in behaviors that could have resulted in imprisonment, criminals are not viewed as those who were caught participating in deviant acts. Instead, criminals are viewed as lawbreaking, norm violating, disruptive individuals who threaten the moral order of society. “The appeal of an emphasis upon the pathologies of criminals and the utility of punishing them lies partly in what it negates: the tracing of crime to pathological social conditions.”[18] Stuart Scheingold points out that the individualistic culture in the United States generates insecurities that prompt a search for scapegoats. For example, if the public school system is failing, drug dealers or gangs could be blamed and targeted rather than lack of funding, inadequate nutrition, poor living conditions, etc. The criminal justice system becomes a mechanism for controlling scapegoats—in particular members of the underclass or the “dangerous classes.”

Various crime control policies established at both the national and local level ultimately determine the structure and operations of the entire criminal justice system as well as what laws will be enforced. It is by definition a very political process.^[19]  The identification of certain behaviors and groups as criminal has effectively been a homogenization process. The offenses and the offenders have become more and more homogeneous in terms of social class, race, and gender. The further one goes into the criminal justice system, the more marked these distinctions become.^[20]

Three factors encourage and reinforce an ideology that is supportive of contemporary crime policies. First, lawmakers focus their attention on the crimes of the poor.[21] In doing so, Americans are presented with an inaccurate “reality” of crime. The most significant result of this focus is that it deflects attention from social inequalities and macro explanations for street-level criminality. Second, the criminalization process presents street crime as a public problem that threatens the moral order. Presenting crime as an omnipresent threat leads to a reality of fear.[22] Those who are fearful of fellow citizens are more trusting of crime policies. Finally, crime policies create and maintain dangerous classes.[23]

The poor, the young, ethnic minorities, and women have the least representation in both federal and state legislatures. These groups have a minimal political voice and the least amount of political influence. They become easy targets for those interested in creating scapegoats to shield their interests—whether corporations looking to increase profits, legislators seeking reelection, or criminal justice system functionaries protecting their turf.

Stages in the Criminalization Process

Stage one in the criminalization process is legislation. In U.S. society, numerous acts are considered to be social harms—harms done to individuals and society as a whole. Some of these are treated as criminal while others are not.^[24] Crimes are defined by laws written by legislators. This process determines the behaviors that are deemed criminal and their corresponding punishments.

The process of writing legislation is impacted by public perceptions, the influence of powerful interest groups, lobbyists, and the interests of the legislators themselves. Interest groups are organized groups of individuals who try to influence public policy decisions. Most of these interest groups disproportionately include people of high social standing and represent powerful corporations, rather than average citizens. In most cases, these are the interests of white, upper- class males who together constitute what some believe to be a “ruling class” in U.S. society.^[25] It is not by accident that many harmful acts engaged in by those of high social standing are considered either noncriminal or misdemeanors.

The more likely that a crime is the type committed by middle- and upper-class people, the less likely it is that it will be treated as a criminal offense. When it comes to crime in the streets, where the perpetrator is apt to be poor, he or she is even more likely to be arrested and formally charged. When it comes to cri9me in the suites, where the offender is apt to be affluent, the system is most likely to deal with the crime noncriminally, that is, by civil litigation or informal settlement.[26]

Most lawmakers are individuals who occupy the highest social class position in society, a position that impacts both their ideology and their perceptions of social issues.^[27] Lobbyists, interest groups, and corporations rarely act on behalf of poor and minority groups. They work to impact legislation in a way that will continue to protect their interests and profits. The linkage between powerful interest groups and political influence lies in the control of purse strings before, during, and after elections.

When a legislative body defines a certain behavior as criminal, it provides an agenda for those who work within the criminal justice system. Criminal law is the foundation of the criminal justice system; police, prosecutors, and judges are empowered to enforce criminal law. For the most part, the decisions that determine what constitutes a crime are based on narrow vested interests. Criminal laws “are formulated by those segments of society which have the power to shape public policy.” Thus, lawmaking “represents the translation of specific interests into public policy.”^[28]

Stage 2 involves the commission of a criminal act. If the act is reported to or observed by police, they may investigate the incident or ignore it. If it is investigated, it may lead to stage 3.

Stage 3 is arrest. The suspect is physically taken into custody. As a general rule, the more serious the violation the more likely an arrest will occur. The arrested party is a highly probable suspect, which may be based on detailed information, social stereotypes, or administrative pressure to “clear the case.” A case is considered cleared when an arrest is made.

Stage 4 is charging, which is actually two theoretically separate substages. The police are the first to charge a defendant through “booking,” but this is followed by actions of the prosecutor who makes a decision to either accept the original charges, alter some or all of the charges, or dismiss the charges.

Stage 5 is court processing. This involves the initial appearance, arraignment, preliminary hearings, grand jury investigations, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, and the trial.

Stage 6 is sentencing. If at any point the defendant pleads or is found guilty in stage 5, he or she is subject to a sanction determined by legislation and judicial discretion. The sanction depends on the type of offense, the defendant’s history, and extralegal factors such as race, gender, and social class. The sanctions can include probation, community service, restitution, drug treatment, or incarceration in a prison or jail. The criminal justice process is often viewed as terminated when the sentence has been served, although a convicted person often continues to encounter criminal justice agents.

All models present idealized version of what is supposed to happen in the criminal justice process. What really happens varies depending on time and place. There are several critical stages during which important decisions are made.

At each progressive stage, the number of potential defendants becomes smaller. More importantly, the kinds of people involved become more and more homogeneous. For instance, they become more alike in terms of age (younger), sex (more are males), race (increasingly nonwhite), social class (increasing numbers of lower- and working-class people and the poor), offense (the kinds of offenses typically associated with the poor and the powerless), and previous experiences with the criminal justice system. When we arrive at the last stage—those who are incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails—we have the most homogenous grouping. Quite simply, the vast majority of inmates are poor, unskilled, uneducated, and have had multiple contacts with the criminal and/or juvenile justice system. The sifting and sorting are often based on legal criteria such as seriousness of the offense and past record. However, extralegal variables such as class, race, and sex become “proxy variables” and play an important role in the criminal justice process.

Jeffrey Reiman argues “Not only is the main entry to the road to prison held wide open to the poor, the access routes for the wealthy are largely sealed off.”[29] Contrary to portrayals of the criminal justice system as a sieve in which the innocent are progressively sifted out from the guilty. Reiman notes that the sieve also works another way. It sifts the affluent out from the poor so that the guilty poor end up in prison

The criminal justice system does not simply weed the peace-loving from the dangerous, the law-abiding from the criminal. At every stage, starting with the very definitions of crime and progressing through the stages of investigation, arrest, charging, conviction, and sentencing, the system weeds out the wealthy. It refuses to define as “crimes” or as serious crimes the dangerous and predatory acts of the well-to-do. . . . Instead, the system focuses its attention on those crimes likely to be committed by members of the lower classes. Thus, it is no surprise to find that so many of the people behind bars are from the lower classes. The people we see in our jails and prisons are no doubt dangerous to society, but they are not the danger to society, not the gravest danger to society.^[30]

Social Inequality and Class Structure in the United States

It is difficult to understand the role that extralegal factors play in the U.S. system of justice without understanding the class structure in our society. The share of the financial wealth of the top wealth-holders has increased in recent years, with 1% of the households getting 40% of all financial wealth in 2001, doubling from about 20% in 1976. The largest increase occurred during the 1980s.^[31] Overall inequality, measured by the Gini Index of Inequality (a ratio between 0 denoting perfect income equality—everyone earns the same amount and 1 denoting perfect income inequality—one person earns everything) has gone up since the late 1960s. Whereas in 1970 the index for the United States was 0.396, in 2005 it was at 0.469, the largest of any industrialized nation.^[32]

In 2005 the average chief Executive officer earned 431 times the pay of the average worker, up from a ratio of 42 to one in 1980. Indeed, the rich are getting richer and practically everyone else is getting poorer.^[33]

The proportion of Americans living in poverty has increased. As inequality has grown, the social conditions of the most disadvantaged sectors of society have worsened. Massive cutbacks on social spending for programs for the poor have been especially devastating to children. Indeed, one of the most striking facts is that more than 18% of all children, 35% of African-American children, and 28% of Latino children now live in poverty. The poverty line sis et by the Social Security Administration; in 2006, the poverty threshold is $20,000 for a family of four.[34] The method of calculation remains the same as it was in the 1960s—multiplying the amount of money needed for a subsistence diet by three, adjusted for inflation. As many critics point out, food costs are currently a much smaller portion of family budgets; rent, transportation costs, child care, and health care now account for much larger shares of household expenditures. Most critics contend that the official poverty rate should be raised by at least 50%. Under that standard, the official poverty rate would increase to 22.5% and children living in poverty would jump to 31%.

There are many different definitions of social class. Sociologists who have studied this subject have never completely agreed on a uniform definition. It is important, however, to attempt a definition. Here we will combine the definitions given by two different sociologists, Robert Rothman and Martin Marger. Social class refers to groups of individuals or families who have about the same income and occupation and have a similar position within the larger system of economic production in an industrial society.^[35]

The class structure of U.S. society can be seen as a system consisting of six major parts or subgroupings (see table 1.1). These social classes are differentiated mainly by the amount of income and wealth families or individuals have, the sources of such income and wealth (mostly their occupation but at the upper levels the assets they have, such as land, stocks and bonds, etc.), and the amount of education they have. Table 1-1 illustrates what this class system looks like.

Table 1-1. The American Class Structure.

                                                                       Source of               Typical

Class                Percent Salary Range                                        Income                 Occupation

Upper                   1-2                     > $1 million                              Assets*               Investors, corporate execs.

Upper-middle     14-20                $80,000-$1,000,000                      Salaries                Upper-level mgrs.,

                                                                                                       professionals, small

                                                                                                       business owners

Lower-middle     25-30                $35,000-$75,000                        Salaries &                lower-level mgrs.,

                                                                            Wages                semi-prof; small bus.

                                                                                 owners, craftspersons

Working            20-30                $25,000-$40,000                            Wages                  low-skilled workers,

                                                                                                        clerical, retail sales,

                                                                                                        some service

Working poor     10-15                $12,000-$25,000                            Wages                 lowest level skills, low level service

                                                                                                                              unskilled workers

Underclass         8-12                       < $12,000                                Public                  unemployed

                                                                      assistance;

                                                                    “underground

                                                                        economy”

* Assets include mostly stock and bonds, and other investments, land, companies owned, etc.  Most of the very rich got their start from inheritances.

Sources:  Rothman, R. A., Inequality and Stratification (3^rd ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999, p. 7; Marger, M. N., Social Inequality. 

Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1999, p. 28; Gilbert, D., The American Class Structure (5^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998, p. 15.

There are direct and indirect consequences stemming from one’s social class position—plus race and gender. Social class affects life chances, which include the prospect of a healthy and lengthy life, the possibility of a college education, the potential for becoming a professional or finding a satisfying occupation, attaining income and wealth, plus, on the negative side, the risk of being a crime victim or an offender. Life chances affect the possibility of getting arrested, convicted, going to jail or prison, and especially receiving the death penalty.

While the United States does offer the possibility of mobility between classes, the bulk of any movement is from one layer to the layer immediately above it. Thus, using the class layers in table 1-1, most mobility would be between the lower-middle to the upper-middle, or from the working class to the lower-middle. It should also be pointed out that there has been a great deal of downward mobility in recent years. The majority of Americans, however, remain in the social class in which they were born. Movement that does occur, either upward or downward, stems mostly from a combination of structural changes in the economy beyond the control of the average person.^[36]

In the context of crime and criminal justice, it is critically important to note that power and privilege primarily reside with the small percentage of upper-class Americans. To put it bluntly, the top 1–2% essentially run the country—they pass most of the laws, they create foreign and domestic social policies, they help themselves and fellow members of the upper class get elected, and they control the bulk of the assets of the country. For these reasons, this group is referred to as the “ruling class,” “dominant class,” “governing class,” or simply “the powers that be.”^[37]

It is also important to understand that racial minorities are far more likely to be in the lower socioeconomic brackets. For example, African-American families are about three times more likely to live in poverty than whites.^[38] Gender is also correlated with poverty. Women are, for instance, far more likely to be single parents. They earn far less than men due to the nature of their jobs, the wage gap, and the likelihood that they will work part-time.^[39]

Conversely, the working poor and the underclass have virtually no power or resources, both of which are needed to resist receiving the label of “criminal.” This point will become clearer and clearer in each subsequent chapter. These huge discrepancies in wealth and power make it virtually impossible to have a system that promotes equal justice. David Cole’s book, No Equal Justice, posits two systems of justice in the United States, one for the privileged, another for the nonprivileged.^[40]

THE CRIME CONTROL INDUSTRY

The U.S. criminal justice system is large and complex. It is also very expensive to operate. For example, the most recent figures reveal that federal, local, and state governments spent $196 billion on police, courts, and corrections in 2004 (see table 1.2) Expenditures increased 439 percent since 1982; expenditures on the correctional system soared 585%.[41] There are over 50,000 different governmental agencies employing over 2.3 million people in this system who share a payroll of more than $5 billion per month.^[42] We suggest that this system is part of a much larger system known as the Crime Control Industry.^[43]

The crime control industry consists of more than the three components of the criminal justice system. It includes the businesses that profit from the existence of crime and/or attempts to control crime. Examples include private security firms, a prison industrial complex, drug testing firms, gun manufacturers, 3,000 colleges and universities that offer degrees in criminal justice, and media outlets that depend on stories about crime and criminals.

The war on crime has become a booming business, with literally hundreds of companies profiting from it and others seeking to share in the wealth. Employment in this industry offers careers for thousands. The criminal justice system provides a steady supply of career possibilities (police, correctional officers, probation and parole officers, and administrative staff, to name just a few) with good starting pay and benefits, along with job security.

In his book Class, State and Crime, Richard Quinney wrote that the criminal justice industrial complex is a part of the “social-industrial complex.” He described this larger complex as “an involvement of industry in the planning, production, and operation of state programs. These state-financed programs like education, welfare, and criminal justice are social expenses necessary for maintaining social order and are furnished by monopolistic industries.” Large corporations, Quinney suggested, have found a new source of profits in this industry, with the criminal justice industry leading the way. Private industry, in short, has found that there is much profit to be made as a result of the existence of crime.^[44]

In 1967, the President’s Crime Commission suggested that the solution to crime requires a combination of science and technology.

More than 200,000 scientists and engineers have applied themselves to solving military problems and hundreds of thousands more to innovation in other areas of modern life, but only a handful are working to control the crimes that injure or frighten millions of Americans each year. Yet the two communities have much to offer each other: Science and technology is a valuable source of knowledge and techniques for combating crime; the criminal justice system represents a vast area of challenging problems.^[45]

Policymakers embraced this technocratic solution to the crime problem. The crime control industry is so huge that it is almost impossible to estimate the amount of money spent and the profits made.

 Table 1-2. Criminal Justice Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1982 and 2004 (in billions).

Sources: McGarrell E. F. and T. J. Flanagan (eds.). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1986, p. 2; Maguire, K. and A. L. Pastore (eds.). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1999, Table 1.2; Hughes, K. Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts 2004, NCJ 215648, 11/15/2006.

Employment within the crime control industry is growing rapidly, providing many career opportunities for both college students and high school graduates. As already noted, there are more than 2.3 million people employed within this system. The largest component is within the corrections category, with just over 1.4 million, representing an increase of over 90% from 1982. The U.S. Census reports that the hiring and training of correctional officers is the fastest-growing segment of government employment. There are more people working in corrections than all of the  people employed in any Fortune 500 company except General Motors.^[46]

Literally thousands of companies, large and small, are seeking profits in this booming industry. An advertisement placed in the July 2005 issue of Corrections Today by a distance-learning company included this headline: “Crime doesn’t pay, but a degree in Criminal Justice does!” The same issue contained ads from four academic programs that offer degrees, certificates, workshops and other assorted programs.[47] Advertisers at an annual meeting of the American Jail Association used lines such as “Tap into the Sixty-Five Billion Local Jails Market” and “Jails are BIG BUSINESS” to attract customers.^[48] Trade journals that serve the correction industry have seen their advertisements triple since the 1980s. Aramark, a food service company, advertised that while “your correctional officers are watching the food line, Aramark will be watching your budget.” General Marine Leasing, a modular facility builder, asked and advised: “Overcrowded? Don’t let overflow put them back on the street.” Companies that sell health care, fences, tea, blankets, transport vehicles, security scanners—or anything else needed to house and feed inmates—have an expanding market for their products.

Summary

In this chapter we began with the observation that the basis of the U.S. criminal justice system is found within the three branches of our government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution provides for the creation of laws by state legislatures and Congress; it grants executive branch officials and the courts the authority to enforce those laws. The criminal justice system is the instrument designated by Executive branch officials to enforce laws that pertain to criminal behavior.

We reviewed the basic components of the criminal justice system: the police, the courts, and the prison system. Each component is involved in different stages of the criminal justice process. We then reviewed two traditional models of the criminal justice system, beginning with the President’s Commission model of the late 1960s. We noted that such a depiction, however, does little more than outline the stages one may or may not pass through. The model suggests that the system is an efficient one where cases are processed in a more or less orderly manner from the beginning to various exit points. The wedding cake model depicts the criminal justice system as consisting of four major layers. Walker’s assumption is that the system handles different kinds of cases differently, mainly in terms of the disparities between cases in different layers.

We presented a criminalization perspective, in which criminal justice is a process that is not always about responding to crime per se but rather the processing of certain kinds of defendants accused of committing certain kinds of crimes. Legislation determines what acts are criminal, and the criminal justice system is the apparatus for processing those who violate the laws. The further one goes into the system, the more the offenses and the offenders become homogeneous in terms of social class, race, gender and other characteristics.

Key variables in understanding this model are inequality and power. Social class affects life chances and the probability of having the power to protect one’s interests. Differentials in power based on such criteria as race, sex, and social class largely determine what kinds of behaviors are deemed criminal and how or if one is processed through the system. The criminal justice system has grown to such an extent that numerous industries depend on it for their profits, adding another layer of interests served by the labeling of certain people and behavior as criminal.

Notes