D e m o c r a c yi s s u e s o f

E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L S O F T H E U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F S T A T E

J U L Y 2 0 0 1

V O L U M E 6 N U M B E R 1

C R I M I N A L

J U S T I C E I N

T H E U . S .

THIS ELECTRONIC JOURNAL focuseson criminal justice in the U.S. A recurringtheme in all of our articles is the inherent ten-sion between the need to swiftly and effectivelyprosecute crimes and the equally importantneed to protect the rights of all citizens. Thepresumption of innocence is at the heart of theU.S. system. Any defendant is presumed inno-cent until proven guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt—the standard for all criminal trials inthe U.S.

As Professor James B. Jacobs documents inour opening article, the nation’s criminal lawsystem has evolved significantly since the found-ing of the Republic. Jacobs, Warren E. Burgerprofessor of law at New York University anddirector of its Center for Research in Crime andJustice, explains the federal-state demarcation,criminal procedure and the system of sentenc-ing and appeals. Importantly, he also docu-ments how the rights of Americans under the

criminal justice system have expanded over theyears, particularly during the last century.

The U.S. criminal justice system is nowperceived as fairer and more equitable thanduring earlier times, particularly concerningminorities and women. This is important in andof itself. But as Tom Tyler, professor of psychol-ogy at New York University substantiates the factthat Americans perceive the system as largelyjust and unbiased, and in accord with their ownvalues, helps to generate law-abiding behavior.Tyler discusses issues such as ethical motiva-tions in compliance with the law versus the lesseffective tool of deterrence.

During recent decades especially, numer-ous states have experimented with legal reformsdesigned to make the criminal justice systemmore efficient and effective. One such reform isthe emergence of “community justice”—vari-ous means of mediation between criminal andvictim. Dennis Maloney, director of Community

2

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Criminal Justice in the U.S.

From the Ed i tor s

Justice, a local government organization thatemphasizes crime prevention and collaborationin Deschutes County, Oregon, describes thesystem as it exists in one jurisdiction in thatWestern state.

In our case study for the journal, Con-tributing editor David Pitts looks at the story ofthe Scottsboro Boys, the high profile legal casethat began 70 years ago. The case is importantin civil rights history to be sure. But it also issignificant in the history of American juris-prudence because it led to two landmark U.S.Supreme Court decisions that enhanced funda-mental rights for all Americans. The ScottsboroBoys v. the state of Alabama dramatically illus-trates that rights under the U.S. system may beexpanded not just as a result of changes in U.S.criminal law, but also because of judicialreview and constitutional oversight.

The journal concludes with a variety of ref-erence resources—books, articles and Internetsites—affording additional insights on U.S.criminal justice.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

3

Four of the nine Scottsboro Boys with attorney

Samuel Leibowitz in 1937. Their case led to two

landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions that

enhanced fundamental rights for all Americans.

4

issues of Democracy

C o n t e n t s

Ju ly 2001

6

T H E E V O L U T I O N O F U . S . C R I M I N A L L A W

James B. Jacobs,Warren E. Burger professor of law at New York University (NYU)

and director of the Center for Research in Crime & Justice at the NYU School of Law,

discusses the nation’s criminal law system.

16

O B E Y I N G T H E L A W I N A M E R I C A :P R O C E D U R A L J U S T I C E A N D T H E S E N S E

O F FA I R N E S S

Tom Tyler, professor of psychology at NYU, dissects the perceptions

and attitudes of the American people toward their criminal justice system

and how such views influence law-abiding behavior.

22

T H E E M E R G E N C E O F C O M M U N I T Y J U S T I C E

Dennis Maloney, director of Community Justice, a local government

organization that works closely with NGOs in Deschutes County, Oregon, describes

the “community justice” system, which uses mediation as a tool

to settle differences between criminal and victim.

29

T H E S C OT T S B O R O B OY S A N D

F U N D A M E N TA L R I G H T S

Contributing editor David Pitts examines the story of the Scottsboro Boys,

a high profile civil rights case that began 70 years ago.The case led to two landmark

Supreme Court decisions that enhanced fundamental

rights for all Americans.

5

36

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Articles and books on U.S. criminal justice.

40

I N T E R N E T S I T E S

Internet sites that feature U.S. criminal justice themes.

The opinions expressed on other Internet sites listed here do not necessarily

represent the views of the U.S. government.

PUBL I SHER Judith Siegel

MANAGING EDITOR Anthony W. Sariti

CONSULT ING EDITOR Wayne Hall

INTERNET/TEXT EDITOR Deborah M.S. Brown

CONTR IBUT ING EDITORS Estelle Baird

Mona Esquetini

Stuart Gorin

Charla Hatton

John Jasik

David Pitts

REFERENCE SPEC IAL I STS Anita Green

Andrea McGlinchey

ART DIRECTOR Diane Woolverton

GRAPH ICS ASS I STANT Sylvia Scott

ED ITOR IAL BOARD Howard Cincotta

Judith Siegel

Leonardo Williams

The Office of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department of State provides products and services that explain U.S. policies, society, and values to foreign audiences. The Office

publishes five electronic journals that examine major issues facing the United States and the international community.The journals—Economic Perspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign

Policy Agenda and U.S. Society and Values—provide statements of U.S. policy together with analysis, commentary and background information in their thematic areas. • All issues appear in English, French

and Portuguese and Spanish language versions, and selected issues also appear in Arabic and Russian. • English-language issues appear at approximately a one-month interval. Translated versions

normally follow the English original by two to four weeks. • The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department

of State assumes no responsibility for the content and continued accessibility of Internet sites linked to herein; such responsibility resides solely with the publishers of those sites. Articles may be

reproduced and translated outside the United States unless the articles carry explicit copyright restrictions on such use. Potential users of credited photos are obliged to clear such use with said

source. • Current or back issues of the journals, and the roster of upcoming journals, can be found on the Office of International Information Programs’ International Home Page on the World

Wide Web at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm. They are available in several electronic formats to facilitate viewing on-line, transferring, downloading, and printing. • Comments are

welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorial offices: Editor, Issues of Democracy, Democracy and Human Rights—IIP/T/DHR, U.S. Department of State, 301 4th Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C.

20547, United States of America.e:mail: ejdemos@pd.state.gov

A N E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L O F T H E U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F S T A T E

I S S U E S O F D E M O C R A C Y

C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E I N T H E U . S .

J U L Y 2 0 0 1

6

In this primer on the U.S. criminal justice sys-tem, James B. Jacobs, Warren E. Burger profes-sor of law at New York University (NYU) anddirector of the Center for Research in Crime &Justice at the NYU School of Law, explains thestructure and basic jurisprudence of U.S. crimi-nal law procedure. But its essential nature, hesays, is grounded in the U.S. Constitution andthe Bill of Rights. It is the Constitution thatinspires the federal-state structure of the systemand that serves as the ultimate authority onwhat is permissible.

THE FOUNDATION of U.S. criminalprocedure is the U.S. Constitution, includingthe first 10 Amendments, which form the Bill ofRights. The Constitution guarantees all personsliving in the U.S. fundamental rights, freedomsand liberties. Chief among these, as far as U.S.criminal law is concerned, is that defendantsare entitled to a presumption of innocence.Defendants do not have to prove their inno-cence. The government must prove their guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Rights such as theseframe the federal-state system prescribed in the Constitution. Of particular importance arethe Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment protects defendantsagainst double jeopardy (being tried more thanonce for the same crime by the same authority),and against being required to testify againstthemselves in criminal cases. Most significant-ly, it also protects defendants’ rights of “dueprocess,” a phrase of vast significance in theBill of Rights that, especially in the 20th century,was interpreted by the courts to confer on defen-dants a broad array of protections and rights.

C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e i n t h e U . S .

The Evolution of U.S. Criminal Law

by J ames B . J acobs

The Sixth Amendment guarantees defen-dants a “speedy and public trial by an impartialjury of the state and district wherein the crimeshall have been committed.” It also entitlesdefendants to be confronted by (and to crossexamine) the witnesses against them and to havethe “assistance of counsel” for their defense.This last protection also has been expanded overthe years to, in effect, guarantee all defendantsadequate counsel in criminal trials.

The Eighth Amendment rules out “exces-sive bail” for defendants and prohibits “crueland unusual punishments.” This last prohibi-tion has been interpreted by the courts to limitthe kinds of punishments that can be inflicted.In 1972, the death penalty statutes of 38 stateswere effectively voided based on this constitu-tional provision. Some were rewritten to passconstitutional muster. Currently, 38 states havea death penalty statute. But the example servesto illustrate that it is the U.S. Constitution thatis supreme in the U.S. system, not U.S. criminallaw per se. Neither Congress nor the states canpass laws that violate the Constitution.

Every state and the federal government hasits own “substantive criminal law” (specifyingcrimes and defenses) and “criminal procedure”(specifying the stages of the criminal processfrom arrest through prosecution, sentencing,appeal and release from prison). Each state leg-islature promulgates that state’s criminal law,which is enforced by state and county prosecu-tors, adjudicated in local and state-level courts,and punished in state prisons or local jails.Congress passes federal criminal laws, whichare enforced, prosecuted, adjudicated and pun-ished by federal law enforcement agencies,prosecutors, courts, prisons and probation andparole systems.

The Feder a l System

There are over 20 specialized federal lawenforcement agencies, most of which are in theDepartments of Justice and Treasury. The mostprominent federal law enforcement agencies arethe Federal Bureau of Investigation and theDrug Enforcement Administration (in theDepartment of Justice) and the Bureau of Alco-hol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Secret Serviceand the Customs Service (in the Department ofthe Treasury). These agencies are located inWashington, D.C., with field offices around theUnited States, and in some cases, abroad.

Federal prosecutors, called “U.S. attor-neys,” are appointed by the president for eachof 94 judicial districts in the United States.They prosecute only federal crimes in federalcourts. As presidential appointees, U.S. attor-neys have a great deal of independence, butthey are accountable to the U.S. attorney gener-al, who heads the Department of Justice andwho is a member of the president’s Cabinet.

7

James B. Jacobs

The Department of Justice’s criminal divi-sion in Washington, D.C. provides assistance,expertise and some guidance and supervision toU.S. attorneys. The central office of the Depart-ment of Justice also includes special prosecuto-rial units with nationwide authority in suchmatters as organized crime, war crimes, anti-trust and international drug trafficking; theseunits usually work in cooperation with U.S.attorneys.

Federal offenders are incarcerated in prisonsadministered by the Federal Bureau of Prisons,an agency within the Department of Justice.These prisons are located throughout the UnitedStates; a defendant convicted in federal courtmay be incarcerated in any federal prison.However, less than 10 percent of all U.S. pris-oners are held in federal prisoners.

Cr imina l Jus t i ce a t the State and Local Levels

Most criminal justice activity is conductedunder the auspices of state and local govern-ments. Law enforcement at the state level ismostly decentralized to the counties, cities andtowns. The state police exercise authority overthe major state highways and over unincorpo-rated rural areas. They often have other limitedfunctions, including maintenance of criminalrecords. State attorneys general, unlike the U.S.attorney general, usually have little or no pros-ecutorial authority, although they may beresponsible for arguing criminal appeals anddefending post-conviction petitions. Prosecu-tion is a county-level function. Most prosecu-tors, called district attorneys (DAs), are elected.

Each county has a jail that holds defen-dants awaiting trial as well as defendants con-victed of minor crimes called “misdemeanors”

(crimes punishable by a maximum jail term ofone year or less). Probation departments areusually organized at the county level as well.There are more than 20,000 independent policedepartments that belong to local governments.Most of these departments serve small townsand have fewer than 20 officers. In contrast, big city police departments are huge. For example, the New York City Police Department,the nation’s largest, has approximately 38,000 officers. Defendants in state court who are con-victed of felonies and sentenced to imprison-ment, are incarcerated in the state-operatedprison system, usually called the “departmentof corrections.”

State Substant ive Cr imina l Law

While rooted in English common law, Americansubstantive criminal law is statutory. There areno common law crimes in the United States. Inother words, the law of crimes is decided by thestate legislatures (for each state) and by Con-gress (for the federal government). Most states,but not the federal government, have a compre-hensive “code” of substantive criminal lawmade up of general principles of criminalresponsibility, laws defining the particularcriminal offenses, and laws defining excusesand justifications.

Two-thirds of the states have adopted inwhole or in part the Model Penal Code (MPC),which was drafted in the 1950s and 1960s bythe American Law Institute, a prominent lawreform organization. The MPC is the most influ-ential work in American substantive criminallaw. One of the most deeply rooted principles in American criminal law is that there can be no criminal responsibility without culpability or

8

blameworthiness. Under the MPC, culpability,sometimes referred to as mens rea or “state ofmind,” is satisfied by a showing of intent,knowledge, recklessness or negligence, all ofwhich are carefully defined by the code. Exceptin the case of minor offenses and some regula-tory crimes, the MPC requires that there be aspecified culpability for every element of anoffense (conduct, attendant circumstances,result).

Criminal codes set out the prohibitions thatconstitute the law of crimes—offenses against aperson (e.g. murder and rape); offenses againstproperty (e.g. theft and arson); offenses againstpublic order (e.g. disorderly conduct and riot-ing); offenses against the family (e.g. bigamy andincest); and offenses against public administra-tion (e.g. bribery and perjury).

Federa l Substant ive Cr imina l Law

Which crimes are considered federal and whichare considered state? There is no clear answerto this question. Indeed, criminal conduct can-not be sorted into these two baskets. When asingle act or course of conduct violates bothfederal and state criminal laws, it is even possi-ble for both governments to prosecute because,under the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, the dou-ble jeopardy prohibition (according to which aperson may not be tried twice for the sameoffense), does not apply to separate prosecu-tions by separate sovereigns.

In theory, congressional power is limited tothe powers expressly enumerated in Section 1of the Constitution. Offenses like counterfeitingU.S. currency, illegally entering the UnitedStates, treason, and violation of constitutionaland federal statutory rights are obviously with-

in the federal government’s core jurisdiction.But, utilizing its expansive powers under thecommerce clause and other elastic provisions,Congress has passed federal criminal laws deal-ing with drug trafficking, firearms, kidnapping,racketeering, auto theft, fraud, and so forth.

The Supreme Court has rarely found thatCongress lacked authority to pass a federalcriminal law. Partially because of this, the reachof federal criminal law grew inexorablythroughout the 20th century. Today, federalcriminal law can be used to prosecute manyoffenses that traditionally were regarded as astate responsibility. In practice, however, thegreat constraint on the reach of federal criminallaw is resources. The FBI and other federal lawenforcement agencies, as well as federal prose-cutors, can investigate and prosecute only asmall fraction of all the crimes that potentiallyfall within their purview.

Cr imina l Procedure

Every state and the federal government havetheir own criminal procedural rules. The Feder-al Rules of Criminal Procedure are written byjudicial advisory committees and promulgatedby the Supreme Court, subject to amendmentby Congress. State criminal procedural rulesare usually defined by the state legislatures.

Of the 23 separate rights noted in the firsteight amendments to the Constitution, 12 con-cern criminal procedure. Before World War II,these rights were held only to protect the indi-vidual against the federal government. SinceWorld War II, practically all of these rights havebeen incorporated through the FourteenthAmendment’s due process clause and appliedto state law enforcement as well. The federalConstitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the

9

rights of the citizenry against police, prosecu-tors, courts and prison officials. The states maygrant more rights to criminal defendants. Forexample, states such as New York are substan-tially more protective of the rights of criminalsuspects and criminal defendants than is theU.S. Supreme Court.

In American legal parlance, criminal proce-dure refers to the constitutional, statutory andadministrative limitations on police investiga-tions—searches of persons, places and things;seizures and interrogations—as well as to theformal steps of the criminal process. Both theFourth and Fifth Amendments protect the citi-zenry, not just criminals and criminal suspects,from over-reaching police activity.

Right to Counse l

The right to counsel begins when the suspectbecomes the accused, that is at the initiation ofjudicial proceedings. If the accused is indigent,the judge assigns him/her a defense counsel at the first court appearance. A U.S. SupremeCourt decision—Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)—held that the government must appointdefense lawyers for indigents accused offelonies. Later cases extended that ruling tocover all cases where the defendant could besent to jail or prison.

Bai l and Pre-tr ia l Detent ion

If the accused pleads not guilty, the judge mustdecide on pre-trial release and, if so, whetherbail or other conditions ought to be imposed.Historically, the courts have held that a defen-dant ought to be released unless he presents arisk of flight. Typically, despite the supposedlink between bail and assuring appearance at

trial, judges set high bail for individuals arrest-ed for serious offenses, because they are con-cerned about public safety, i.e., the defendantcommitting more crimes if released. Federal lawpermits pre-trial detention without bail in cer-tain situations where the court finds that thedefendant poses a serious threat of future dan-ger to the community and that no combinationof release conditions can reasonably assurecommunity safety.

Formal Accusat ion and the Grand Jur y

American prosecutors have extensive discretionover whether to charge, what to charge and howmany charges to bring against an arrestee.However, most prosecutors dismiss chargesagainst a substantial percentage of arrestees atan early point in the process because:

❍ the arrestee’s conduct did not constitutea crime;

❍ while there was a crime, it is too insignif-icant to prosecute;

❍ while there was a crime, it is not provableagainst this person at this point; and

❍ while there was a crime, the prosecutorbelieves that pre-trial diversion to a treatmentor other program is the most appropriate dispo-sition.

Until the trial begins, the prosecutor mayvoluntarily dismiss the charges against theaccused without prejudice, and thus can bringthe same charges at a later date. The SixthAmendment provides that there shall be nocriminal prosecution except upon indictment bya grand jury. A grand jury is an investigativebody that determines whether there is sufficient

10

evidence to indict. However, the Supreme Courthas held that this is one of the few rights includ-ed in the Bill of Rights that is not binding onthe states. Thus, each state can decide for itselfwhether to use a grand jury to initiate the formalcriminal proceeding.

The accused must be arraigned and for-mally charged within a short period of time. Atarraignment, the judge reads the formal chargesand with respect to each charge, asks the defen-dant to plead guilty, not guilty or not guilty byreason of insanity. Most states also permit aplea of nolo contendere (no contest) which, forpractical purposes, is equivalent to a guiltyplea. A plea of not guilty can subsequently bechanged to a plea of guilty. Only in limited cir-cumstances can a guilty plea be withdrawn.

Pre-tr ia l Mot ions

The rules of criminal procedure provide that thedefendant and his or her attorney have a certainnumber of days to make pre-trial motions chal-lenging the legal sufficiency of the indictmentor information, or seeking the suppression ofevidence. In addition, the defendant may movefor limited discovery of certain evidence heldby the prosecutor. Under most states’ rules, thedefense, if it makes the request, has a right to acopy of any statements made by the accused,copies of scientific tests and a list of the prose-cution’s witnesses. In some jurisdictions thedefendant must notify the prosecution inadvance of its intent to rely on certain defensessuch as an alibi or insanity.

Plea Bar ga in ing

The American practice of “plea bargaining” isoften misunderstood. The practice might moreaccurately be referred to as a system of guiltyplea “discounts.” More than 90 percent of con-victions are the result of guilty pleas. For mostdefendants who plead guilty, there has been no“bargaining.” Rather, the defendant hasaccepted the prosecutor’s offer to drop somecharges in exchange for the defendant’s plea ofguilty to one or more remaining charges.

At the federal level, there is a tradition of“charge bargaining,” that is, before the trialbegins the prosecutor drops the most seriouscharge, and the defendant pleads guilty to alesser one. In some counties and cities, thejudge explicitly offers sentencing discounts. For example, the defendant is promised a 3-yearminimum, 5-year maximum prison term if he/shepleads guilty before the trial takes place; how-ever, he/she will face a 5–10-year minimum, 15-year maximum prison term if found guilty at trial.

Right to Tr ia l

The defendant has a right to a public trial.Thus, American courtrooms are open to thepublic, including journalists. Indeed, theSupreme Court has held that the defendant can-not waive the right to a public trial because thecitizenry also shares this right; nor can a judgeprohibit the press from reporting on criminaltrials. However, this does not mean that cameras(still, moving or television) must be allowed inthe court room. Some states, like California,permit live television coverage of criminal trials.Supporters argue that television coverage pro-vides legal education for a vast public that

11

otherwise would never see a criminal trial. Critics contend that TV cameras in the court-room affect the conduct of the lawyers, judgeand jurors, and alter the courtroom atmosphere.There are no cameras in federal courtrooms.

Under the Sixth Amendment, the criminaldefendant has a constitutional right to a speedytrial. Statutes of limitation, not the speedy trialright, govern the delay between commission ofa crime and the filing of charges. The Constitu-tion dictates that there must not be undue delaybetween indictment and trial. The SupremeCourt, however, has never specified a definiteperiod of time, which, if exceeded, violates thisright. Every case has to be assessed individual-ly. Every state has a speedy trial law that estab-lishes time constraints within which the prose-cution and the courts must bring the defendantto trial.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees acriminal defendant the right to a jury trial.However, like most rights, the jury trial rightmay be waived. The defendant may elect abench trial before a single judge or plead guilty.Usually, defendants have a better chance ofacquittal by a jury. One-fourth to one-third ofjury trials end in acquittals. But some defen-dants prefer a judge to a jury, because theybelieve a judge would be more likely to see thegaps in the prosecution’s case; the judge wouldsentence more leniently after a “bench” trial; orthat the nature of the crime would inflame thejury against the defendant.

Although not constitutionally required, inthe federal system and practically every state,the jury must reach a unanimous verdict. A jurythat cannot agree is called a “hung jury.” In theevent of a hung jury, a mistrial is declared, andthe prosecution must decide whether to try the

defendant again. There is no limit on how many times a defendant can be retried, but very fewdefendants are tried more than three times.

The Tr ia l

Only 10 percent or less of American criminalcases are resolved by trials. The criminal trial isbased upon the adversary system. The defenselawyer vigorously represents his/her client,whether or not he believes him guilty. The pros-ecutor represents the state and the people, butalso bears an ethical responsibility to act as aminister of justice.

The Constitution requires that, in order tofind the defendant guilty, the fact-finder,whether jury or judge, must determine that theprosecution has proven every element of theoffense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is themeaning of the oft-quoted maxim that the“defendant is presumed innocent.”

Both sides have the right to call their ownwitnesses and to subpoena witnesses who willnot appear voluntarily. The lawyers subjecttheir own witnesses to direct examination andthe other side’s witnesses to cross-examination.The judge, but not the jurors, may ask the witnesses questions, but under the Americanadversary system, the lawyers ask practicallyall the questions and the judge acts as animpartial umpire. A witness may refuse on FifthAmendment grounds to testify if he/she has awell-founded belief that the testimony couldincriminate him/her. The prosecution may grantthe witness immunity and then may compel thewitness to answer every question. (The defensehas no such power.) Immunity extends to anycrime the witness admits to as well as to anycrime that investigators uncover as a result ofthe witness’ immunized testimony.

12

13

Sentenc ing

The legislatures, courts, probation departments,parole boards and, in some jurisdictions, sentencing commissions all play a role in the sentencing process. In the first instance, crimi-nal sentences, or at least the maximum permis-sible sentence for each offense, are prescribedby legislatures. State sentencing statutes varyconsiderably and sometimes the same state hasdifferent types of sentencing statutes for differ-ent crimes. Sentence is imposed by the judgeafter a sentencing hearing at which the prose-cutor and defense attorney argue for the sen-tence each thinks is appropriate. The defendantis usually given an opportunity to address thecourt prior to sentence. In some jurisdictions,the victim or the victim’s representatives mayaddress the court as well. The defense lawyer islikely to emphasize the defendant’s remorse,family responsibilities, good job prospects andamenability to out-patient treatment (if neces-sary) in the community; the prosecution is like-ly to emphasize the defendant’s prior criminalrecord, injuries to the victim and the victim’sfamily, and the need to deter other would-beoffenders.

The judge is advised by the probationdepartment, which independently investigatesthe defendant’s background, prior criminalrecord, circumstances of the offense and otherfactors. The judge does not have to make formalfactual findings and need not write an opinionexplaining or justifying the sentence. As long asthe sentence is within the statutory range, itcannot be appealed.

Sanct ions

Probation is the most common sentence metedout by American criminal court judges. Ineffect, the defendant avoids prison as long ashe/she keeps out of trouble and adheres to theprobation department’s rules, regulations andreporting requirements. The judge determineshow long the probationary term will last; sever-al years is not uncommon. The judge may alsoimpose special conditions, like participating ina drug treatment program, maintaining employ-ment or staying in school, if the offender is ajuvenile.

Imprisonment is a very widely used sen-tence; in 2001, on any given day there wereapproximately 2 million persons in U.S. prisonsand jails. Each state and the federal govern-ment have their own prison system. The prisondepartment classifies (according to danger risk,escape risk, age, etc.) offenders and assignsthem to an appropriate maximum-, medium-, orminimum-security penal institution.

Forfeiture of property has increased dra-matically as a criminal sentence in recentyears, especially in drug and organized crimecases. Typically, forfeiture laws provide that, aspart of the criminal sentence, the judge mayorder the defendant to forfeit any property usedin the crime (including car, boat, plane andeven house) and/or the proceeds of his/hercriminal activity (business, bank accounts,securities, etc.).

Fines are less frequently imposed by U.S.courts. When they are imposed, it is usually in addition to other sanctions. Historically, thesize of fines has been low, indeed, much lowerthan the fee a private criminal lawyer charges.Recently, however, maximum fines haveincreased dramatically. When fines are imposed,

14

the Supreme Court has held that a defendantcannot be imprisoned for failure to pay the fine,unless the failure is willful.

Appea l and Post-conv ict ionRemedies

The Constitution does not guarantee a convict-ed offender a right of appeal, but every juris-diction allows at least one appeal as a right, andmany states have two levels of appellate courtsand two levels of appeals. For some secondlevel appeals, the court has the discretion tohear only those cases that it chooses. Becauseof the guarantee against double jeopardy, theprosecution may not appeal a not-guilty verdict.Thus, an acquittal stands, even if it was basedupon an egregious mistake by the judge ininterpreting the law or upon an incomprehensi-ble factual finding by the judge or jury.

After an offender’s state court appeals havebeen exhausted, he/she may file a habeas corpuspetition in federal district (trial level) courtalleging that he/she is being held in state cus-tody in violation of his/her federally guaranteedstatutory or constitutional rights. (Federal pris-oners may also petition the federal courts forpost-conviction relief in the event, for example,that new evidence which could not have beendiscovered before trial, demonstrates inno-cence.) The right of habeas corpus is guaranteedby the Constitution and implemented by a fed-eral statute. In some limited circumstances, anoffender who was unsuccessful in the firsthabeas corpus proceeding may bring additionalhabeas corpus petitions alleging other constitu-tional violations.

Paro le , Remiss ion and Commutat ion

Traditionally, parole boards have played a majorrole in releasing offenders from prisons. Eachstate has its own parole board whose membersare appointed by the governor. The parole boardis usually one component of a large paroleagency that supplies post-prison supervision tooffenders after they are released from prison.The point at which a prisoner is eligible forparole is a matter of state law, so there is con-siderable variation among the states.

In a sentencing system in which the judgeonly specifies a maximum sentence, the prisonermight, for example, become eligible for paroleafter serving one-third of the sentence. Mem-bers of the parole board typically hold briefinterviews with the prospective parolees at theprison. The board is generally interested in theprisoner’s adjustment within the prison, but itwill invariably consider the facts of the crimeand the prisoner’s previous criminal record.

Finally, the governor of each state has thepower to pardon or commute the sentences ofoffenders in that state. The president of theUnited States has similar authority for federaloffenders. Frequently, the law provides for theappointment of a pardon board, which siftsthrough petitions, conducts investigations andmakes affirmative recommendations to the chiefexecutive. Governors, especially in the mostprolific death sentencing states, are frequentlycalled upon to commute death sentences.Unlike in many countries, general amnestiesare not a part of American law or tradition.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

15

Juvenile justice consists of a wholly separate crim-

inal law and procedure. In theory, this system of law

and institutions, invented by progressive reformers

at the turn of the 20th century, operates in the best

interest of the child offender. Juvenile justice is

meted out in juvenile or family court, not criminal

court.The goal is not retribution or deterrence, but

rehabilitation.The juvenile court’s caseload includes

children who have been abused and those whom

parents or school authorities consider incorrigible.

The maximum age for processing an offender as a

juvenile varies from 16 to 21 depending on the juris-

diction and, within a single jurisdiction, on the type

of offense with which the offender is charged.Thus,

there are statutes that permit (and in some cases

mandate) treating a juvenile as an adult if the

offense is a homicide or other serious crime of vio-

lence. Generally, in the juvenile justice system, the

accused is treated more leniently than in the adult

system even though the former provides fewer pro-

cedural rights.

In delinquency cases that reach the point of formal

adjudication, the judge is required to make deter-

minations of fact under standards that closely

resemble those applicable to criminal prosecutions.

The juvenile who is arrested is brought to a juvenile

detention center, separate from the adult jail and

typically administered by a specialized agency of

local or county government. The juvenile has no

right to bail. His/her pre-trial status depends solely

upon a judge’s determination of whether the juve-

nile should remain in custody pending trial to pre-

vent flight or to protect the community from risk of

the juvenile’s commission of a future offense.

The juvenile defendant is not charged with a statu-

tory offense, but with being delinquent. However,

he/she is entitled to counsel and to a presumption

of innocence. Juveniles have no right to trial by jury,

but approximately one-quarter of the states have

enacted statutes providing for a jury trial option

in juvenile cases. The jury or judge must find the

juvenile defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. In most states, the convicted juvenile offender

must be released from the juvenile “reformatory”

or correctional center upon reaching the age of 21.

For most of the 20th century, juvenile criminal

records were sealed. Now, they are commonly

available to police, prosecutors and judges in adult

court. These days, there is a great deal of juvenile

justice law reform, mostly in the direction of treat-

ing juvenile offenders more severely and more like

adult offenders.

J u ve n i l e J u s t i c e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

16

C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e i n t h e U . S .

Obeying the Law in America: Procedural Justice and the Sense of Fairness

by Tom Ty ler

How does a society encourage law-abidingbehavior? Does it rely on the threat of punish-ment only? Or does the public’s sense of justiceand fairness suggest other, more effective, strate-gies? In their studies on this topic, Tom Tyler,professor of psychology at New York University,and others have discovered that Americans, andby extension people in general, obey the lawessentially because they perceive the process as fair and unbiased and in accord with their ownvalues.

IN THE UNITED STATES, people oftenthink of police officers and judges as beinglegal authorities who have a considerableamount of power, which they can use to enforcethe law. They are considered authorities whosedecisions are backed by the potential use of deterrence via punishment, and who arewidely obeyed.

The reality of American legal authority,however, is quite different from this image intwo ways. First, while it is true that Americansare generally law-abiding people, and that they are frequently willing to defer to the deci-sions of police officers and judges, compliancewith the law cannot be taken for granted. Amer-ican legal authorities have always struggled topromote the public’s adherence to the law, andthere are many suggestions that this strugglemay be growing more difficult. In their dealingswith particular citizens, U.S. police officersreport increasing difficulty gaining public com-pliance, while judges report that it is harder toenforce judicial judgments and to bring citizen

17

behavior into line with court orders. In terms ofthe influence of law on people’s everyday lives,there is evidence that, across a broad range ofbehaviors—ranging from paying income tax tostopping at red lights—Americans are payingless attention to the law. The magnitude of thesecompliance problems should not be exagger-ated, but the attention of legal authorities hasbeen increasingly directed to the need for a bet-ter understanding of why people obey the law.

The Role of Eth ica l Mot ivat ions in Compl iancewith the Law

Studies show that, interestingly, the motivationunderlying everyday compliance with the law isnot typically the fear of punishment for ignoringor defying the law that is the basis of deterrencemodels. Instead, people’s primary motivationsfor obeying the law are found to be ethical in character. Two ethical motivations are keyantecedents of compliance: legitimacy andmorality.

Legitimacy refers to the belief that anauthority is entitled to be obeyed. Americanstypically express high levels of such perceivedobligations to obey the police and the courts.For example, almost all Americans agree thatthey should "obey the law, even when they thinkit is wrong." When people view legal authoritiesas legitimate, they voluntarily follow theirdirectives, even if they do not think they wouldbe caught and punished for ignoring them.

In their book entitled, Justice, Liabilityand Blame: Community Views and the CriminalLaw, Paul Robinson and John Darley explainthat personal morality involves the degree towhich people think that the law accords withtheir own feelings about what is right andwrong. In some cases, public morality is veryconsistent with the law. Murder is illegal, andmost people also believe that it is morallywrong. However, in other cases this may not betrue. With drinking, drug use, copying software,and even following parking laws, segments ofthe American public do not view their behavioras morally wrong, even when those behaviorsare contrary to the law.

In a 1990 study on why people obey thelaw, I directly compared the influence of riskjudgments, views about the legitimacy of legalauthorities, and judgments about the morality ofthe law on people’s everyday compliance withthe law. I found that both legitimacy and moral-ity influenced compliance with the law inde-pendently of judgments about the risk of beingcaught and punished for wrongdoing. Thestrongest influence was that of morality, the sec-ond strongest influence that of legitimacy. Riskestimates also influenced compliance, but werethe weakest influence of the three outlined. In

Tom Tyler

18

other words, ethical judgments had the greatestinfluence on compliance, and risk estimates theleast influence.

The Problem with Deterrencein Assur ing Compliance

Other studies suggest that the threat or use ofsanctions, which shapes risk estimates, alsoinfluences law-related behavior to some extent.However, as in my own study, the magnitude ofthat influence is usually found to be small. Forexample, in a review of the literature on Amer-ican drug use, Robert MacCoun in an article ondrugs and the law in Psychological Bulletin,found that approximately 5 percent of the vari-ance in citizen drug use can be explained bycitizen judgments of the likelihood of beingcaught and punished by the police and courts.This conclusion is typical of the findings ofstudies of compliance with the law—deterrenceis found to have, at best, a small influence onpeople’s behavior.

The practical consequence of this findingis that the police and the courts have difficultyin effectively enforcing the law when they canonly rely on their power to punish people. With-out widespread legitimacy and/or when they areenforcing laws that are inconsistent with publicmorality, legal authorities cannot do their jobswell. This is true of both American criminal andcivil law, that is, of the efforts of legal authori-ties to both maintain public order and resolvedisputes among citizens.

The consequences of low legitimacy areillustrated by examining the impact of the lackof trust and confidence in the police and courtswidely found among minority citizens. This lowlegitimacy leads not only to greater law-break-

ing behavior among minorities, but to a generalunwillingness among members of the minoritycommunity to work with the police to deal withcrime-related problems. Famous examples ofthe problems created when the law divergesfrom public morality, drawn from American his-tory, include the effort to make drinking alcoholillegal (Prohibition) and ongoing efforts toenforce laws against prostitution and gambling.Whenever the police seek to enforce lawsagainst behavior that segments of the public donot regard as morally wrong, the job of thepolice becomes more difficult.

How can this issue be addressed? Onepossible approach would be to dramaticallyincrease the size of police forces and to givethem greater power to intrude into people’severyday lives, increasing the likelihood thatpeople who break rules would be caught andpunished for their crimes. This, in turn, wouldincrease the estimate of the risk of gettingcaught, and thus discourage criminal behavior.For example, in their struggle to prevent drunkdriving, some countries allow the police to setup random road blocks to stop drivers, whileother countries allow the police to stop andquestion any citizen on the street or in a car,and even to hold people in jail without charges.It is not clear how much of an effect giving legalauthorities such increased powers would actu-ally have on public behavior, but it is possibleto imagine strategies that could be used to makedeterrence more effective.

There are several difficulties associatedwith seeking to increase the effective rule of law by strengthening deterrence. One issue isthat strengthening government power in Amer-ica conflicts with a longstanding emphasis on individual freedom and rights that is strongly

19

rooted in the American Declaration of Indepen-dence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thisdemocratic tradition has been coupled with ageneral willingness of Americans to defer togovernment and law, but that deference is notautomatic, and suspicion about government anddefiance of laws regarded as unnecessarilyintrusive is another longstanding element ofAmerican political and legal culture. Increasinggovernment power, therefore, might have theeffect of undermining legitimacy and loweringcompliance with the law. Another issue iswhether it is realistic to think that strategiesintended to change risk judgments could effec-tively alter public behavior. As noted, changesin risk judgments have, at best, a minor influ-ence on such behavior.

The Role of Procedura l Fa i r ness in Ga in ing Compl iance

Is there an alternative approach to creating andsustaining a viable legal system? Recent studiesof the basis upon which the American publicreacts to laws and to the decisions of legalauthorities point to one important possibleapproach. Because the police and the courts aresocial regulatory authorities, they are oftenforced to make decisions on outcomes that peo-ple view as undesirable or even unfair. Thepolice, for example, tell people not to do thingsthey want to do, and enforce those orders bythreats, arrests and even physical force. Judgesmust often enforce laws by sentencing people topay fines or serve time in prison. It is oftenassumed that such undesirable outcomes willonly be accepted when legal authorities arebacked by the threat or use of force.

Studies of people’s reactions to personalexperiences with the police and courts suggesta different and much more positive image ofhow citizens react to decisions made by legalauthorities. These studies demonstrate thatpeople use ethical criteria to evaluate their per-sonal experiences. In particular, they evaluatetheir experiences with legal authorities througha filter of procedural justice. Research consis-tently finds that people’s primary basis foraccepting or rejecting the decisions made bypolice officers and judges is their evaluation ofthe fairness of the procedures used by theauthorities to make those decisions.

Consider an example. I interviewed peoplewho appeared before judges in traffic court inChicago, Illinois. At the time, it was a commonpractice to dismiss people’s cases when theyappeared in court in person, based upon theassumption that coming to court was punish-ment enough for minor offenses. So, each liti-gant received no fine and had no record. Wemight have expected people to be happy. How-ever, I consistently found that people wereangry. Why? Because they did not experiencethis mode of case disposition to be fair. Theywanted to have a trial in which they could pre-sent their evidence and receive a legal decisionabout the merits of their traffic ticket. Receiv-ing a favorable outcome was less important tothem than having their day in court.

In The Social Psychology of ProceduralJustice, E. Allan Lind and I interviewed peoplewho engaged in personal dealings with bothpolice officers and judges. We found repeatedlythat people react strongly to their evaluations ofthe fairness of these legal authorities. Peoplewho feel fairly treated are more willing toaccept decisions, even if those decisions are

20

unfavorable, and irrespective of whether theythink they will be caught and punished if theydo not accept them. Why is this the case? Expe-riencing fair procedures engages people’s feel-ings of obligation to obey. It also leads people toview decisions as more consistent with theirmoral values. For these reasons, people acceptthese decisions more willingly. This finding isimportant because it suggests that people focuson ethical issues, rather than personal gainsand losses, when they are reacting to their expe-riences with the police and the courts.

These findings suggest that legal authoritiescan gain acceptance for decisions if they payattention to how those decisions are made. In a 1997 study done by Paternoster et al., furtheradherence to these decisions over time is high-er, since people feel more personal responsibil-ity for following them, and for obeying similarlaws in the future. In the 1997 study, peoplewho felt that they were fairly treated when theydealt with the police were found to be morelikely to follow the law during a six-month peri-od after their experience. Since the police werenot present during most or all of this later timeperiod, people were taking the responsibility tofollow the law upon themselves. The experienceof being fairly treated led them to consent tosocial regulation and they were personally com-mitted to following the law.

What elements of procedures shape thejudgments that people make about their fair-ness? Studies suggest that members of the pub-lic have complex models of procedural justice,often considering eight or more distinct justiceissues when deciding how fair they think a legalprocedure is. Four issues are typically found tobe important.

❍ First, they value the opportunity to par-ticipate and give input when decisions arebeing made.

❍ Second, they want procedures to be neutral—unbiased, based upon factual criteria andmade via the consistent application of rules.

❍ Third, they want to be treated with dignityand respect, and to have their rights acknowl-edged.

❍ Fourth, they want to feel that the authori-ties have considered their needs and concerns,and have been honest in their communicationswith them.

In discussions about whether or not toaccept a directive from a legal authority each ofthese concerns is typically more important indecisions than are assessments of the fairnessor favorability of the decision itself.

Impl icat ions of Procedura lJust ice for Establ i sh ing Lega l Author i ty

People put different weight on these differentelements depending on the nature of the issueor problem involved. So, for example, opportu-nities for input are especially important whenauthorities are trying to settle a dispute amongseveral people. On the other hand, people’s eth-nicity, gender and social status do not influencetheir views about what makes a procedure fair.This suggests that procedural fairness may bean especially valuable mechanism throughwhich to find solutions to disputes that crossgroup boundaries. Studies find that people fromdifferent economic, social or ideological groupsoften have very different views about what con-stitutes a fair outcome, and have opposingviews about what type of outcome is favorable to

21

them and/or their group. These same people,however, will have much more in common whenasked about the attributes of a fair decision-making procedure. Since the ability of a fairprocedure to facilitate acceptance of decisionshas been noted, it is encouraging that peopleseem to agree widely about what makes a pro-cedure fair.

Similar procedural justice findings emergewhen we examine people’s everyday obedienceto the law. People are more likely to obey the lawwhen they have trust and confidence in the fair-ness of the procedures used by legal authoritiesand legal institutions. So, by making decisionsfairly, legal authorities build a legal culturewithin which people feel a personal responsi-bility to abide by the law. Such a self-regulatorysociety is based upon people’s feelings ofresponsibility and obligation to the law, and ontheir willingness to follow their own moral val-ues. The key to creating and sustaining such asociety is the use of fair procedures by legalauthorities.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

22

What if, instead of going through the tried andtrue way of dealing with a criminal offender,there was a more effective, more grass-rootsapproach? Instead of going through a lengthytrial process, at which the offender may or maynot be convicted, the community could work withand through a special agency organized tomediate between criminal and victim. DennisMaloney, director of Community Justice, a localgovernment organization that works closely withNGO’s to emphasize crime prevention and collaboration, describes the “community justice”system that is working in Deschutes County, Oregon.

CONSIDER THE following circumstance.After working late one evening, you catch thelast bus. Departing the bus at your regular stopyou begin your walk toward home. As youapproach your home, you notice a troubling sit-uation. You hear a group of children crying.They are standing over a woman lying on thesidewalk. As you rush to the scene, you noticewhat appears to be a male figure slipping awayinto the shadows toward the alleyway. What doyou do?

I have asked this question to thousands ofcitizens in dozens of U.S. states. The response isconsistent. First, you attend to the woman,check her vital signs and determine the natureof her injury. Second, you observe the childrento find out if they too have suffered an attack.Third, you summon a neighbor to call theappropriate number for emergency assistanceand to dispatch the police to locate and arrestthe offender. This sequence: attending to thecrime victim, taking the pulse of the surround-

C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e i n t h e U . S .

The Emergence of Community Justice

by Denn i s Ma loney

23

ing community, and then dealing with theoffender appears to be an American protocolwhen responding to crime.

F laws in the System

If this is, in fact, the series of actions that aretaken at the moment the crime occurs, why doesthe U.S. criminal justice system appear toadhere to virtually a reverse protocol? In theUnited States, we appoint government financedlegal services for the offender, provide counsel-ing and therapeutic interventions and evenupon incarceration, provide extensive educa-tional and vocational services. All the while,crime victims languish to deal with their traumathrough their own means. Thus, the Americanpublic has come to conclude that the criminaljustice system has become so offender-focusedthat, in essence, we have become offender advo-cates. Many even perceive us to be offenderadvocates at the expense of victim and commu-nity needs. This paradox will never and shouldnever be acceptable. The U.S. system has

depended on incarceration as the preferredand, in many cases, the only means to holdoffenders accountable for their behavior. Thereis growing evidence that we can more deeplyimpress upon the offender the personalizedeffects of their behavior by involving the victimthroughout the proceedings. This, in turn, canactually cause a much deeper sense of offenderaccountability.

Let us first acknowledge that there is anabsolute place for jails to control dangerousoffenders during pre-trial deliberation and sub-sequently to punish those offenders for theirwanton acts. These offenders require secure prisons for lengthy periods of time. But we alsoneed to remember that a vast amount of victim-ization involves property loss at the hands ofoffenders with no demonstrated tendencytoward violence. These crimes include suchacts as theft, burglary, vandalism and passingbad checks. These crimes account for up to 90percent of all crimes committed in the UnitedStates. In these cases, it may be far more satis-factory and certainly less costly to hold theoffender directly accountable to the victim andthe community.

This can be accomplished by allowing thevictim to determine an appropriate level of res-titution, identify a meaningful amount of com-munity work service, and with the aid of atrained mediator, arrange for the victim toexpress face to face to the offender the traumasuffered as a result of the crime.

In fact, if the criminal justice systemreserved prison space for dangerous person-to-person offenders and those chronic, unstop-pable property offenders, we could take the sav-ings and provide extensive and much needed

Dennis Maloney

24

treatment service for victims. We could alsofinance viable crime prevention strategies, thevery best way to prevent victimization.

This brings us to a third element of the U.S.criminal justice system: crime prevention. Wehave a system with the most comprehensiveinformation available about the places, times,frequency and patterns of criminal activity. Yetif we look at the resources dedicated to pre-venting crime, we find there is great room forimprovement. Just as the system, in large part,traditionally pays little attention to crime vic-tims, so too has it paid too little attention to agenuine crime prevention discussion. The sys-tem primarily manages the movement of offend-ers, often relying on very expensive responses.This approach, some feel, is short-sighted.

Community Just ice

In Deschutes County, Oregon, and a handful of other jurisdictions across the United States, a group of judicial officials has teamed up withlocal elected officials, legislative representa-tives and private citizens to acknowledge thesystem’s shortfalls, and more importantly, tobuild a better system of criminal justice—a system we’ve come to identify as “communityjustice.”

Within a community justice framework,the victim is regarded as the paramount “cus-tomer” of the justice system, offenders are heldaccountable in constructive and meaningfulways, and crime prevention is viewed as a highpriority. Citizen participation in attending tovictim needs, determining priorities, mediatingrestitution requirements and supervising com-munity work service projects is central in acommunity justice approach. Justice system

officials are careful to state that this shift canoccur while remaining steadfast to due processrequirements.

Deschutes County has taken several stepsto demonstrate they are serious about their newvision for the justice system. Following a seriesof meetings convened by Presiding CircuitCourt Judge Stephen Tiktin regarding the needfor the local justice system to elevate victimservices and crime prevention, the countyemerged with an official resolution to respondto the group’s leadership. This resolution inturn spurred a series of actions that have quickly moved the system toward a community justice model.

Here are some examples of ideas thathave been implemented since adoption of theresolution:

To Better Ser ve V ict ims

The Deschutes County District Attorney’sOffice has developed a full complement of vic-tim services. The Department attends to vic-tims’ needs from the time a crime is reported tothe time the last restitution payment is made.This victim’s assistance program is patternedafter U.S. hospital emergency “coding.” Person-to-person crimes are regarded as code blue, andthe program will assure that a victim has a sup-portive volunteer by his/her side within minutesof a call. Lesser crimes are responded to withinhours, and victims suffering minor crimes arecontacted within a couple of days following thereport. Victims also receive other services, suchas trauma counseling, temporary housing ifrequired, legal information and assistance withrecording losses. The message is clear to crimevictims, “You are an upstanding member of our

25

community; you have been wronged, and it isour job to do everything we can to make certainyou are restored to the highest degree possible.We will stand by your side until a sense of safe-ty returns.”

The Deschutes Circuit Court has prompteda complete range of opportunities for victims tobe directly involved in the justice process. Thecourt has placed a particularly high priority onvictim-offender mediation services. In thisapproach, victims can choose to meet face toface with offenders to explain the human conse-quences of their losses, state their need forrecovery of financial losses and determineappropriate community service requirements.The session is facilitated by a highly trainedvolunteer. The newly formed Department ofCommunity Justice coordinates the program forthe court. Early results of this approach arevery encouraging. Victims report a much higherlevel of satisfaction with mediation than withtraditional judicial processes. And the agree-ments reached are far more durable than stan-dard orders of probation. Offenders pay restitu-tion at a much higher rate, approaching 90 per-cent compared with a national probation aver-age of just 33 percent.

The Community Justice Department isconverting positions that once focused onoffender counseling to positions that emphasizevictim support and counseling. The old systemasked of each law enforcement referral—“Whatis the status of the offender? What are his/herneeds? What services are required to changehis/her behavior.” The new system asks—“What is the situation of the victim? What isthe degree of his/her hardship? What does theoffender need to do to repay the victim?”

The Department continues to manage andsupervise the offender’s behavior. But the pri-mary context of the supervision has to do withthe offender’s responsibility to restore the vic-tim and pay the restitution. Accountability, notcounseling, is the highest priority of the offend-er’s supervision.

Manag ing Proper ty Of fender sMore Creat ive ly

The business community in Deschutes Countyhas joined forces with the Department of Com-munity Justice to form what has become knownas the Merchant Accountability Board. Theboard was developed for several reasons:

❍ Shoplifting, retail theft and bad checkswere taking a terrible toll on area merchants, insome cases threatening the viability of somesmall businesses.

❍ The district attorney’s office was reachinga point where it could barely afford to prosecutethe flood of these cases, as each prosecutionwas costing $600–$900 from the Department’sbudget for attorney fees and other staff costs.This cost was the same whether the theft was ofa large sum of money or a small one.

❍ Merchants, while supportive of the coun-ty’s Victim Offender Mediation Program, couldnot afford to take the time to go through media-tion on every case.

As a result of these circumstances, themerchants put together a program in which onemerchant would serve as the surrogate victimfor a dozen or so cases and determine an appro-priate level of restitution. In this way, the caseis handled without the need for costly prosecu-tion, the merchant victim gets an opportunity toimpress upon shoplifters and petty thieves the

26

gravity of their effect on a small business fami-ly, and the merchants receive their restitutionmore quickly, and at a higher rate, than throughconventional judicial processes.

Bui ld ing More Viable Communit ies

One of the featured changes that has occurredwith the Department’s commitment to commu-nity justice is now to view the community ser-vice sentence as a resource to build more viablecommunities. Community work service has tra-ditionally been used primarily as a punitivemeasure for offenders. In Deschutes County,under the umbrella of the community justicephilosophy, work service is seen as a means torestore victims and the community.

Within this context, the Department hasworked diligently with community nonprofitagencies to tackle an array of innovative pro-jects. These include:

❍ Partnering with a local Rotary Club to helpconstruct a child abuse center,

❍ Joining forces with a local anti-povertyagency to help raise money for a 70-unit transi-tional housing shelter,

❍ Working to construct a community park inhonor of a former community educator, and

❍ Developing a formal relationship withHabitat for Humanity, where offenders haveconstructed homes, under the auspices of thatorganization.

With this approach, the community gainstangible benefits from the Department, andoffenders begin to build a bond with the community thereby reducing the likelihood of

vandalism on their part. The community hasdemonstrated overwhelming support for thisapproach.

Prevent ion Str ateg ies

This issue may well have stirred the county’smost creative thinking. In analyzing the state’sjuvenile corrections system, the county deter-mined that Oregon had inadvertently created anincentive for counties to use state correctionsfacilities. In Oregon, the counties pay no pricefor use of state institutions, so in essence, thereis a free option for counties to place trouble-some but not necessarily dangerous juvenileoffenders in state correction facilities. Not sur-prisingly, there is and there likely will alwaysbe, pressure to expand juvenile institutions tohouse the counties’ juvenile offenders. Whileon the surface this appears financially benefi-cial to county governments, it only serves toboost prison populations and costs, thus threat-ening other essential state services such as education.

Deschutes County and the Oregon YouthAuthority hammered out a way to reverse thistrend. The county offered to shift to a block-grant funding base where the county wouldmanage in its local facilities non-dangerousjuvenile offenders, who would otherwise havebeen placed in state institutions. The local pro-grams are paid for with funds from the blockgrant with the agreement that any savings canbe reinvested in crime prevention strategies.And the savings can be significant, as much asseveral hundred thousand dollars a year. A cit-izens’ Commission on Children and Families ismanaging the money. These citizens bring astrong business perspective to the program and

27

clearly differentiate between expenses andinvestments. This innovative approach wonsupport from the state legislature and GovernorJohn A. Kitzhaber.

If this program works and expands to othercounties, Oregon will win in two ways. The cur-rent prison population can at least be restricted,and dollars once destined for costly prisonoperations can be reinvested in communitycrime prevention strategies.

These are just a few examples of effortsundertaken since the community justice initia-tive was launched. With citizens and victimsmore involved, there is an endless creativeenergy available to transform the criminal jus-tice system into a community justice system.

Community justice clearly responds to vic-tims’ needs first, offers creative solutions tohold nonviolent offenders accountable and fea-tures crime prevention as an important aspectof the criminal justice system’s daily activities.Central to this philosophy is the active partici-pation of citizens in all aspects of the justicesystem. This citizen participation serves toexpand the sense of responsibility for safercommunities far beyond justice system profes-sionals. With this new sense of ownership andresponsibility, citizens willingly bring energyand resources never before made availablethrough tax-supported means. Armed with anew philosophy and equipped with citizen-pro-vided leadership and resources, the futurelooks brighter and safer for those places in pur-suit of community justice.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

28

R E S O L U T I O N N O . 9 6 – 1 2 2

WHEREAS , the citizens of Deschutes County

should be entitled to the highest level of public

safety, and

WHEREAS , increasing rates of juvenile and adult

crime pose a threat to our citizens being and feel-

ing safe, and

WHEREAS , a comprehensive crime reduction strat-

egy requires a balanced emphasis on crime preven-

tion, early intervention and effective corrections

efforts, and

WHEREAS , Community Justice embodies a philos-

ophy that engages the community to lead all crime

prevention and crime reduction strategies,

NOW, THEREFORE , the Deschutes County Board

of Commissioners adopts Community Justice as the

central mission and purpose of the county's com-

munity corrections efforts. Furthermore, the County

hereby creates a Department of Community Justice

to replace the Department of Community Cor-

rections.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Commu-

nity Justice shall work in partnership with the Coun-

ty's citizenry to carry out effective crime preven-

tion, crime control and crime reduction initiatives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County shall

construct a Community Justice Center to provide

facilities and programs for victims of crime to be

restored, for offenders to be held accountable and

to gain the competencies to become responsible

and productive citizens, and for the community to

have access to an organizational center for a broad

range of crime fighting efforts.

DATED TH IS 25th day of September 1996, by the

Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.

C o m m u n i t y J u s t i c e R e s o l u t i o n

29

C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e i n t h e U . S .

This year is the 70th anniversary of a trial thatcaptured the imagination of the nation foralmost two decades. The case of the ScottsboroBoys v. the state of Alabama became a causecelebre, was a major precursor of the U.S. civilrights movement and led to two landmark U.S.Supreme Court rulings that enhanced funda-mental rights for all Americans. The case alsowas a sobering reminder that rights enshrined inwritten constitutions are rarely immediate reali-ties, but instead evolve over time in the light ofjudicial interpretation and review. Contributingeditor David Pitts discusses the significance ofthe high court rulings in the following article.He also visited Scottsboro to talk with the mayorof the city and to ask how his town has changedsince the first trials took place there in 1931.

IN MARCH 1931, nine young black males,aged 13 to 21, riding in an open freight carthrough rural Alabama were jailed and put ontrial—after being accused of raping two whitewomen—Ruby Bates and Victoria Price—whoalso were aboard the train. The place wasScottsboro, a small hitherto little-known townthat was to give its name to one of the mostfamous civil rights cases in American history—a story of racism, stereotypes and sexual taboosplayed out in the heart of a then rigidly segre-gated South. Eight of the nine young men werehastily convicted and sentenced to death. RoyWright, who was just 13 years old, was sparedthe ultimate penalty.

The courthouse where the first trials tookplace still stands in the center of the town,although one resident was quick to remind avisitor that later trials were moved elsewhere inAlabama. Most people asked have only a vagueknowledge of what took place here sevendecades ago. Said one elderly man, “I was a boy

The Scottsboro Boys and Fundamental Rights

by Dav id P i t t s

30

when the trials began. I vaguely remember myparents mentioning it. It was only later that Irealized that an important event happened righthere in this town. But I didn’t realize it untilcivil rights became a big thing.”

The Impor tance of the Case

The story of the Scottsboro Boys is importantnot only in civil rights history, but also in theevolution of constitutional law, for it was thiscase that led to a more wide-reaching interpre-tation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guaran-tee of “equal protection under the law” and of“due process of law.” The case also expandedthe scope of the Sixth Amendment’s assuranceof a defendant’s right to “have the assistance of

counsel.” Specifically, the case ultimatelyresulted in a guarantee of adequate counsel forall Americans in all criminal trials, state or fed-eral; and a requirement that no race or ethnicgroup may be excluded from juries.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Consti-tution includes various rights intended to ensurethat criminal defendants receive fair trials. Akey provision is the right to be represented by alawyer. But throughout most of the life of theRepublic the right to counsel was limited tothose who could afford one and also confined tocrimes under federal jurisdiction. That changedwith the Scottsboro Boys, who were accused ofviolating state, not federal law, and who were so

The Scottsboro courthouse today.

31

poor they could barely support themselves, letalone pay for a lawyer to represent them. Twolawyers were eventually provided, but theywere far from adequate. One was a Tennesseereal estate attorney who was drunk throughoutthe proceedings. The other was a local attorneywho had not tried a case in decades.

The F i r s t Landmar k Supreme Cour t Ru l ing

In a landmark ruling, in the Scottsboro case,Powell v. Alabama (1932), named after one ofthe nine defendants, the U.S. Supreme Courtdeclared that poor defendants facing the deathpenalty must be provided with adequate coun-sel. The Court based its decision largely on thedue process clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment to the U.S. Constitution. In overturning thedeath sentences, the Court majority determinedthat the Scottsboro Boys’ defense was, to say theleast, inadequate. The Supreme Court rulingsaid that counsel was “fundamental” to dueprocess in cases of this seriousness, whether ina state or federal court.

“In reversing the convictions,” writes Don-ald Lively in his book, Landmark SupremeCourt Decisions, “the Supreme Court deter-mined that the complexities of a criminal trialrequire the right to have counsel present.”Although Powell v. Alabama was a limited deci-sion in that it applied only to capital cases, con-stitutional experts say it has had a substantialimpact on American jurisprudence, since forthe first time, a right to counsel was establishedfor state, as well as federal, courts.

In addition, as the U.S. Constitutional LawDictionary explains, “it tied the Sixth Amend-

ment counsel clause to the states through thedue process clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment, albeit (to this point) only for capital casesat the trial stage.” The significance of the rulingalso was underlined by Maureen Harrison andSteve Gilbert in their book, Landmark Decisionsof the United States Supreme Court. “From thebeginning,” they write, “our state and nationalconstitutions and laws have laid great emphasison procedural and substantive safeguardsdesigned to ensure fair trials before impartialtribunals in which every defendant standsequal before the law.”

The Second Landmar kSupreme Cour t Ru l ing

Alabama, however, refused to give in, and re-prosecuted the Scottsboro case even thoughdoctors who examined the women certifiedthere had been no rape and even though RubyBates recanted her story a month before the newtrials began. Death sentences were againreturned for two of the defendants—HeywoodPatterson and Clarence Norris. A second land-mark U.S. Supreme Court decision—Norris v.Alabama (1935)—again overturned the deathsentences, this time because Alabama prohibit-ed African Americans from sitting on the juries.The unanimous decision spoke of the “theunvarying and wholesale exclusion” of blacksfrom the juries and called the idea that AfricanAmericans were not qualified to serve, as somehad alleged, “a violent presumption.”

Commenting on the Norris ruling’s signifi-cance, The Oxford Guide To U.S. Supreme CourtDecisions says the high court held “that the systematic exclusion of African Americans fromservice on the grand jury and trial jury denied

32

African American defendants in the state courts(of Alabama) the equal protection of law guar-anteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Theywere, in fact, denied a fair trial by an impartialjury, writes James Goodman in his widelyacclaimed book, Stories of Scottsboro. “In aunanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Courtagreed with the defense that Negroes had beenarbitrarily and systematically excluded fromAlabama’s jury rolls in violation of the equalprotection clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment.”

Despite the two U.S. Supreme Court rul-ings against the prosecution, the state of Alaba-ma once again persisted in holding more trials.Eventually five of the men were convicted andserved long jail sentences, the last beingreleased in 1950. The other four were set free.Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not savefive of the Scottsboro Boys from prison, it didensure that they were not executed. Constitu-

tionally, the significance of the case is that theU.S. Supreme Court had committed itself to theright to adequate counsel, at least in capitalcases. It also had served notice that excludingcitizens from jury service based on race wouldnot be tolerated. The 1935 Norris v. Alabamadecision ultimately—but not immediately—ledto the abolition of all-white juries throughoutthe South.

Later Cour t Dec is ions

With regard to the Powell v. Alabama decision,subsequent Supreme Court rulings strength-ened the right to counsel guarantee. In Johnsonv. Zerbst (1936), the nation’s highest courtdeclared that all defendants facing felony

Four of the nine Scottsboro Boys with Samuel

Leibowitz, one of the attorneys in the case.

From left, Willie Robertson, Eugene Williams,

Leibowitz, Roy Wright and Olen Montgomery.

33

charges in federal court must be provided withattorneys. Previously (since 1790), it had beenthe case that only persons charged with capitalcrimes in a federal court must be provided anattorney. In the 1940s, the right was expandedby the Court to cover many state felony defen-dants facing state charges less serious thanthose faced by the Scottsboro Boys. Many statesupreme courts also acted to require that coun-sel be provided—in particular in felony crimi-nal cases.

As late as 1963, however, there were stillseven states that failed to require that lawyersbe provided for all state felony defendants. TheU.S. Supreme Court brought the entire countryinto line with its decision in Gideon v. Wain-wright (1963), which applied the Sixth Amend-ment right to counsel to all state, as well as fed-eral courts in felony cases. “The right of onecharged with a crime to counsel may not bedeemed fundamental and essential to fair trialin some countries,” declared Justice Hugo Black,“but it is in ours.”

The decision was the essential culminationof one of the most dramatic stories in U.S. con-stitutional law—chronicled in detail in the1964 book, Gideon’s Trumpet. “Gideon is adecision of extraordinary importance,” say LeeEpstein and Thomas Walker in their widelyquoted book, Constitutional Law For A Chang-ing America. It brought “legal representation toa class of defendants who previously did notenjoy the services of an attorney.”

Subsequent Supreme Court rulings in thelate 1960s, and especially the early 1970s,broadened the universal right to counsel estab-lished in 1963. In 1972, the Court held that theright to counsel applied not only to state and

federal defendants charged with felonies, but inall trials of persons who could receive a jailsentence if convicted. The nation had come along way since nine young, frightened AfricanAmericans stood in a hot, dusty Alabama court-room in the spring of 1931 on trial for their lives.

In the case of the Scottsboro Boys, howev-er, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, trigger-ing a series of major rulings that enhanced fun-damental rights for all Americans and ensuringthat this particular racial drama would becomelegend not only in civil rights history, but alsoin the long evolution of American jurispru-dence. It is a case that incited much passionand debate in the 1930s and that still reverber-ates in our own time, affirming the principle ofequal protection under the law.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

34

On March 31, 1931, nine young African Americans

were indicted in Scottsboro, Alabama, on charges

of having raped two white girls on a railroad freight

car. Doctors who examined the girls after the

alleged crime said that no rape occurred. Despite

that evidence, eight of the nine boys were con-

victed and sentenced to death by the state court.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v.Alabama (1932)

and Norris v. Alabama (1935) reversed convictions

and death sentences obtained in the local courts—

in the first instance, because the defendants had not

been given adequate counsel, and in the second

instance, because blacks had been excluded from

the juries.

Nevertheless, further prosecutions in the case con-

tinued in Alabama between 1935 and 1937. Four

of the defendants were again convicted and were

sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Charges against

the remaining five were dropped. Andy Wright was

the last to be released from jail, in 1950; 19 years,

two months and 15 days since he spent his first night

in jail. The alleged leader of the group, Heywood

Patterson, escaped from jail in 1948, making his way

to the Midwestern state of Michigan where there

was no legally mandated segregation.The governor

of Michigan refused to extradite him back to Alaba-

ma. Patterson's book, Scottsboro Boy, was published

while he was a fugitive. He died of cancer in 1952 at

the age of 39.

Ozzie Powell and Clarence Norris, whose names

appeared in the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court

decisions, were both paroled from prison in 1946.

Thirty years later, Norris sought and obtained an

unconditional pardon from then-Alabama Governor

George C.Wallace.Wallace had previously favored

the state's segregation laws, but by the 1970s,

legally mandated segregation had been crushed in

Alabama and the governor was seeking to make

amends for past wrongs. In 1979, Norris published

his own book about his ordeal titled,The Last of the

Scottsboro Boys. He died in 1989, the last surviving

Scottsboro Boy.

T h e F a c t s o f t h e C a s e a n d S c o t t s b o ro To d ay

35

The Scottsboro Boys were championed by widely

disparate groups in the 1930s, including the Ameri-

can Communist Party and the National Association

for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),

the nation's oldest civil rights organization. But the

eventual freedom of most of the defendants was

mainly the result of the work of the Scottsboro

Defense Committee, an umbrella group dominated

by Americans of all colors.The demonstrations and

rallies that were staged in support of the Scotts-

boro Boys are viewed by historians as a significant

precursor of the modern U.S. civil rights movement

that began in the early 1950s. The U.S. Supreme

Court decisions that were issued as a result of the

case are considered landmark rulings that signifi-

cantly expanded fundamental rights for African

Americans; indeed, for all Americans.

Driving into Scottsboro today—seven decades later

—there is no hint of the inflexible segregation that

must have seemed inviolable in the early 1930s.

The town's mayor, Ron Bailey, wants visitors to

know that Scottsboro, a community of only about

15,000 people, is a very different place today than

it was then. “Our town is fully integrated now; the

largest percentage of our population wasn't even

born when the first trials took place here,” he says.

“You must judge the events of 1931 in the context

of the predominant mores of that time,” he adds.“In

1931, there were still people living in this town who

personally remembered the Civil War. Alabama

recovered much more slowly than did other parts

of the South, economically and otherwise.

“It is important to remember what happened in

this town in 1931, but it could have happened in

many places at that time,” notes Bailey. “Scottsboro

has changed since then and so has the South. The

Scottsboro of today is progressive in terms of race.

We probably have a greater percentage of inter-

racial dating and marriages than anywhere else in

Alabama. And today, our town is no longer just

black and white, but multiracial.We have a growing

percentage of Asians and Hispanics, for example.

Race relations in Scottsboro are now much like

they are in other parts of America. Things are not

perfect here, but we’ve come a long way.”

36

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Barnes, Patricia G.CQ'S Desk Reference on American Criminal Justice: Over 500 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions from Law Enforcement to Corrections.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001.Features answers to over 500 frequently askedquestions about the U.S. legal system. Referencematerials include significant laws and court deci-sions, and a glossary of common legal terms.

Boyer, Peter J.“Annals of Justice: DNA on Trial,” New Yorker,January 17, 2000, pp.42–53.Makes the case that not all DNA laboratories and technicians are created equal, and emphasizesthe primary role played by human advocates inthe criminal justice process, even with the pres-ence of scientific data.

Champion, Dean J.Dictionary of American Criminal Justice: Key Termsand Major Supreme Court Cases. Chicago: FitzroyDearborn, 1998.An up-to-date dictionary of terms used in thecriminal justice field and an annotated alphabeticcompilation of important U.S. Supreme Courtcases addressing criminal justice make up this volume, which includes a subject index of cases.

Cowan, Catherine“States Revisit the Death Penalty,” State Government News, vol. 44, no.5, May 2001,pp. 12–17.Legislators have proposed suspending or abol-ishing the death penalty in more than 20 states.Cowan details several cases where the systemfailed, and notes that while according to a public-opinion survey the majority of Americans supportcapital punishment, they are divided over whetherit is administered evenly.

Crump, David and George JacobsA Capital Case in America: How Today’s Justice System Handles Death Penalty Cases, from CrimeScene to Ultimate Execution of Sentence. Durham,NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2000.Describes what happens in a capital case from“the offense and the arrest” to “the aftermath,”examining the process from beginning to end and analyzing specific cases.

“DNA Testing and Capital Punishment:Technology from the Crime Scene to the Courtroom.” Congressional Digest, November2001, pp. 257 – 265.This issue is devoted to the growing phenomenonof DNA testing and its repercussions for prisonerson death row. Articles focus on technology, theU.S. prison population, state and federal deathpenalties, and legislative background.

Fur ther In format ion on Cr im ina l

Ju s t i ce in the U.S .

37

DeVore, Donald and Kevin Gentilcore“Balanced and Restorative Justice and Educational Programming for Youth At-Risk,”The Clearing House, vol. 73, no. 2, November 1999, p. 96.Discusses Montgomery County, Pennsylvania’s,implementation of the “Balanced and RestorativeJustice” (BAR J) educational model for youth at-risk.This model replaces more traditional punish-ment or treatment methods with emphasis on a balanced triangle of goals: community safety,accountability and competency development.

Edwards,Todd“Sentencing Reform in Southern States:A Review of Truth-in-Sentencing and Three-Strike Measures.” Spectrum:The Journal of State Government, September 22, 1999, vol. 72,no.4, page 8.Discusses and provides statistical data on theeffects of sentencing reform implemented by U.S.states within the Southern Legislative Conference.

Fagan, Jeffrey and Franklin E. Zimring, eds.The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice:Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court.University of Chicago Press, 2000.Contains a collection of essays that address thepolicy of trying and punishing American youths asadults, the boundaries of juvenile court, and thedevelopmental and psychological aspects of thecurrent policy.

Franklin, Carl J.Constitutional Law for the Criminal Justice Professional. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 1999.Designed to be both an educational and reference tool for professionals at all levels, this is a study of the most dramatic and significantareas in U.S. constitutional law. Focuses on topicssuch as search and seizure, arrest and civil rights,due process and the judicial system.

Friedman, LawrenceCrime & Punishment in American History.New York: Basic Books, 1993.Written by an eminent Stanford University LawSchool professor, this panoramic history of theAmerican criminal justice system looks at crimeand punishment in America, from the Salem witchcraft trials in the 17th century to the trials of four Los Angeles police officers in the RodneyKing beating case in the early 1990s.

Henderson, HarryCapital Punishment. New York:Facts on File, 2000.An encyclopedic collection of information on capital punishment, covering many of the debatesfrom several perspectives.

Kadish, Sanford H., ed.Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.New York: Free Press, 1983.One of the most significant criminal justice encyclopedias today, this volume contains articleswith accompanying bibliographies that provideinformation on concepts, theories, principles and research related to criminal behavior andcriminal justice legal issues.

Kurki, Leena “Restorative and Community Justice in the United States,” Crime & Justice, vol. 27,Spring 2000, pp. 235–304.Distinguishes between “restorative justice,”which promotes healing and the rebuilding of relations among victims, offenders and their communities; and “community justice,” which views crime as a social problem requiring the involvement of criminal justice agencies.Provides background for each movement and evaluates the success of respective projects.

Leighton, PaulCriminal Justice Ethics. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.A collection of essays that examines how personal and moral beliefs influence the relation-ship between criminal justice and social justice.Included topics are “what should be a crime?”

38

lawyers’ ethics, treatment of inmates, the deathpenalty and the moral foundations of criminal guilt.

Lewis,AnthonyGideon’s Trumpet. New York:Vintage Books, 1989.A history of the 1963 landmark U.S. SupremeCourt case (Gideon v.Wainwright) follows JamesEarl Gideon’s fight for the right to legal counsel incriminal proceedings. Includes notes, table of casesleading up to the final verdict and an index.

Manfredi, Christopher P.The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice.University Press of Kansas, 1998.Account of the U.S. Supreme Court’s role in shaping the history of American juvenile courts.

Palmer, Louis J., Jr.Encyclopedia of Capital Punishment in the United States. Jefferson, NC:McFarland, 2001.Comprehensive source of information on the legal, social and political history, and the presentstatus of capital punishment in the U.S.

Paternoster, Raymond, Robert Brame,Ronet Bachman and Lawrence W. Sherman“Do Fair Procedures Matter?” Law and SocietyReview, vol. 31, 1997, pp.163–204.Results from the Milwaukee,Wisconsin, DomesticViolence Experiment show that when police actedin a procedurally fair manner in the arrest ofassault suspects, the rate of subsequent domesticviolence was significantly lower than when they did not.

Ryan, George and Frank Keating“Is the Death Penalty Fair?” State GovernmentNews, vol. 44, no. 5, May 2001, pp. 10–11.The governor of Illinois (Ryan) tells how wrongfulconvictions made him reassess the death penalty,while the governor of Oklahoma (Keating) main-tains it can be fairly administered.

Schmalleger, Frank Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st Century, 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall, 2000.Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 4th ed.Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.The two textbooks above by Schmalleger look at the U.S. criminal justice system, and present overviews and analyses of crime,criminal law, policing, adjudication and cor-rections, as well as focus on juvenile justice,drugs and the future of criminal justice in the United States.

Sherwin, Richard K.When Law Goes Pop:The Vanishing Line Between Law and Popular Culture. University of Chicago Press, 2000.A legal theorist’s and former prosecutor’s appraisal of the impact of popular culture on the criminal justice system in the United States.

Sudo, Phil“Five ‘little’ people who changed U.S. history;Supreme Court cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford,1857; Brown v. Board of Education, 1954;Gideon v.Wainwright, 1963; Miranda v. Arizona,1966; Roe v.Wade, 1973.” Scholastic Update,vol. 122, no. 10, January 26, 1990, p. 8.Profiles five U.S. Supreme Court cases in whichordinary people profoundly influenced the course of justice in the United States.

Tyler,Tom R., et alSocial Justice in a Diverse Society.Boulder, CO:Westview, 1997Analysis of the existence of cross–cultural conceptions of justice, concluding with an optimistic picture of the possibility of the realization of justice within a multicultural society.

39

Tyler,Tom R.“Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure,”International Journal of Psychology, vol. 35,2000, pp. 117–125.Recent psychological research on social justiceseems to indicate that people are more willing to accept procedural justice judgments when they feel that those judgments are made throughdecision-making procedures they view as fair.“Fairness” is evaluated by such criteria as neutralityand trustworthiness of authorities, and the degreeto which authorities treat subjects with dignity and respect during the process.

Umbreit, Mark S.“Restorative Justice Through Victim-OffenderMediation: A Multi-Site Assessment.” Western Criminology Review vol.1, no.1. 1998Report on studies in restorative justice, which concentrate on processes and results of severalvictim-offender mediation situations. Only availableonline at: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/umbreit.html

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

40

I n t e r n e t S i t e s

Criminal Justice Links

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/cj.html

A comprehensive array of resources, includingorganizations, cases, reports and much more.

Criminal Justice on the Web

http://www.albany.edu/scj/links.htm

The University at Albany’s School of Criminal Justice in New York, sites links to many valuableinformation sources covering national and statelaws, restorative justice, police and correctionalinstitutions.

Criminal Justice, 2000 Volumes 1–4

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/cj2000.htm

The National Institute of Justice commissionedmore than 60 criminal justice professionals toreflect on criminal justice research accomplish-ments, and analyze current and emerging trends incrime and criminal justice practice in the UnitedStates.The website contains the full-text articles.

Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/index.html

Published by the School of Criminal Justice,University at Albany (NY), this journal providesaccess to full-text articles, essays and reviews.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

http://www.fbi.gov/

Provides access to the FBI’s Uniform CrimeReports, congressional testimony, “most wanted”posters and crime alerts, as well as an “FBI forKids” feature, among many other items.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service(NCJRS)

http://www.ncjrs.org/

NCJRS is a U.S. federally sponsored informationclearinghouse for people around the worldinvolved with research, policy and practice related to criminal and juvenile justice and drug control.

I n te r net S i tes on U.S . Cr im ina l Ju s t i ce

41

National Institute of Justice (NIJ): SEARCH

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/search.htm

NIJ is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice and is the onlyfederal agency solely dedicated to researchingcrime control and justice issues. NIJ providesobjective, independent, nonpartisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the chal-lenges of crime and justice, particularly at thestate and local levels.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Since 1984 the U.S. Office of Justice Programs has provided federal leadership in developing thenation’s capacity to prevent and control crime,improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems,increase knowledge about crime and relatedissues, and assist crime victims.

Public Agenda Online

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=crime&list=1

Indepth survey and analysis of American attitudestoward crime, punishment, the death penalty and other issues from Public Agenda, a nonparti-san, nonprofit public opinion research and citizeneducation organization founded in 1975.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

Continually updated compilation of data on theU.S. criminal justice system, public opinion polls,and offender and situation profiles.

United States Supreme Court

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Learn about the Court, and look at the lives of present and past justices, as well as read their arguments and opinions on Supreme Court cases.

Issues of Democracy, IIP Electronic Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 2001

D e m o c r a c yi s s u e s o f

E L E C T R O N I C J O U R N A L S O F T H E U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F S T A T E

V O L U M E 6 N U M B E R 1J U L Y 2 0 0 1

C R I M I N A L

J U S T I C E I N

T H E U . S .