1 Essentials of Criminal Justice

On June 7th, 2021, Alex Murdaugh, a prominent South Carolina attorney, made a distressing 911 call to report the discovery of the lifeless bodies of his wife, Margaret, and their youngest son, Paul, at their family hunting lodge estate in rural Colleton County, South Carolina (Ortiz, 2021). Subsequently, the coroner’s report, released four days later, disclosed that Margaret and Paul had sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The combination of this information and corroborating evidence swiftly led to the arrest of Alex Murdaugh. The case gained widespread national attention due to the prominence of the Murdaugh lawyers in legal circles.

As the police delved into the investigation of Margaret and Paul’s murder, they uncovered a web of illegal activities, including the 2018 death of the longtime Murdaugh housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield. The investigation also exposed multiple instances of insurance fraud, money laundering, forgery, and other illicit activities. Collectively, Murdaugh faced over 100 charges in both federal and state courts spanning more than 11 years of illegal activity, involving multiple deaths and the theft of over $8 million dollars.

How did Murdaugh manage to evade detection and prosecution of his financial crimes for over a decade? To what extent does economic status, social networks, and race contribute to shaping perceptions of who is likely to be a criminal and who is not?

As you read this chapter, think about the United States (U.S.) criminal justice system and how the processing and sentencing of criminal offenders relates to the administration of justice for the offender, victims, and affected community. Consider ways in which the criminal justice system could be improved.

Overview

The impact of the criminal justice system is pervasive in our daily lives, intricately woven into the very fabric of society. Beyond merely maintaining public safety and upholding social order, the system plays a pivotal role in preserving individual rights and cultivating community trust. Its influence extends beyond the realms of security, justice, and equality, leaving an enduring mark on our collective understanding of law, authority, and civic engagement. Whether through the application of the rule of law, the intricacies of due process, or the deterrence of criminal behavior, the reverberations of the criminal justice system are felt across various dimensions of personal and communal existence. A profound comprehension of its complexities is essential for anyone seeking an in-depth understanding of the functioning of society.

This chapter serves as a comprehensive initiation into the American criminal justice system, embarking on a chronological journey through its evolution to meet the dynamic needs of our diverse society. Our exploration begins by delving into the historical roots and early philosophical perspectives of crime, providing the essential groundwork for a nuanced understanding of the U.S. criminal justice system. As we navigate through the chapter, we unravel different perspectives of justice, shedding light on the intricate processes within the criminal justice system.

This chapter acts as a guiding beacon, introducing readers to the fundamental components of the criminal justice system. By the chapter’s conclusion, readers will have gained a solid understanding of the key elements that constitute the system, laying a robust foundation for delving into the subsequent chapters of this textbook.

1.1 The Evolving System of Justice

Concepts of crime control and punishment have deep historical roots, with some of the oldest known documents on record establishing foundational rules to maintain a specific society’s operations and structure. While these concepts continue to evolve, they have been just as vital in early civilizations as they are in the modern world. Criminal justice is an academic field that delves into the study of crime control, punishment, law, and other related concepts. This relatively new field is inherently multidisciplinary, incorporating theories and concepts from neighboring fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and criminology (Bernard & Engel, 2001). This chapter will introduce the essential elements within the field of criminal justice as a framework to build upon as you develop your understanding of this field of study.

1.1.1 Society and its Shifting Norms

Each society has its own unique set of agreed-upon social norms , which have historical roots that have evolved over time to meet the changing needs of its citizens. These norms encompass various aspects of social behavior, from defining moral wrongs and antisocial acts to social order maintenance within the society. These concepts are an essential part of the system of social control , consisting of both formal sanctions and informal sanctions to dissuade undesirable actions and behaviors.

1.1.2 Adapting to an Ever-Changing Society

Society is in a constant state of evolution, driven by both technological advancements and changes in social dynamics. As society’s needs transform, it becomes imperative to develop new methods of crime control that can effectively address these evolving demands. Striking a balance between tradition and innovation is crucial to implement constructive changes that can enhance society.

1.1.3 The Challenge of Pluralism

In a dynamic society, one that is constantly changing, the methods of formal social control must also evolve. Adapting to these changes is vital to ensure that the justice system remains effective. This necessitates addressing a wide range of social issues and considering the needs of various communities, particularly minorities , and addressing issues related to race and ethnicity . A pluralist society faces a complex array of challenges and opportunities as it seeks to balance tradition with innovation to create a more just and equitable society.

1.1.4 Function of the Criminal Justice System

Criminal justice serves a multitude of crucial functions within society, and it plays a pivotal role in maintaining social order, ensuring community safety, restoring public confidence, conflict resolution, and administering justice in various forms. This intricate framework revolves around the delicate equilibrium between safeguarding individual rights and preserving public order, making it a dynamic and multifaceted system dedicated to upholding the principles of fairness, safety, and equality within society.

At its core, the criminal justice system is committed to maintaining social order by interpreting and enforcing laws. These laws regulate behavior, prevent chaos, increase community safety, and provide a structured framework for a more predictable and orderly society. The criminal justice system offers a structured process for resolving conflicts and disputes, providing a forum for parties to seek justice when they believe they have been wronged.

The system is instrumental in ensuring community safety by identifying and detaining individuals who pose a threat, society is shielded from potential harm and danger. By enforcing laws and regulations, the criminal justice system ensures that society functions in an organized and predictable manner while safeguarding the well-being and security of the community.

An effective criminal justice system is critical in building and maintaining public confidence. When individuals perceive the system as fair and just, they are more likely to trust in the rule of law and participate actively in society. Ideally, the criminal justice system addresses systemic issues like discrimination and bias through policy reform and changes in practice aimed at reducing disparities and promoting greater equity, which, in turn, contributes to the advancement of public confidence.

Justice , a central pillar of the criminal justice system, encompasses several dimensions. Social justice promotes equality before the law and the protection of society, while civil justice seeks to free individuals from fear and discrimination. Individual justice focuses on safeguarding personal liberties, human dignity, and the right to due process.

Punishment and rehabilitation are other key functions of the criminal justice system. In general, punishment provides a sense of justice for victims and society, ensuring that those who break the law incur appropriate consequences, while rehabilitation involves support services for offenders to facilitate reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens. This focus on rehabilitation is particularly important when addressing issues like addiction and mental health.

The multifaceted nature of the criminal justice system involves a careful balance between individual rights and public order. It protects the rights and freedoms of individuals, ensuring fair and just treatment regardless of background or circumstances. This includes safeguarding the rights of the accused, such as the right to a fair trial and legal representation. Individual rights advocates emphasize the importance of ensuring justice for each person, recognizing personal liberty, human dignity, and the right to due process. Conversely, public order advocates stress the significance of social justice, equality before the law, freedom from fear, and the broader protection of society.

1.2 Views of Crime

Before delving deeper into discussion of the current U.S. criminal justice system, we must first explore the fundamental question of why we have a criminal justice system in the first place. While it is generally agreed upon that laws have been established and enforced to maintain public order and punish wrongdoers, the actual purposes and true intentions of these laws and enforcement tactics are much more intricate. Two competing viewpoints regarding human nature and social control are the consensus perspective and the conflict perspective .

1.2.1 Consensus Perspective

In the 17th century, John Locke, an influential philosopher and political theorist published Two Tracts on Government, laying the foundation for social contract theory . Locke’s perspective on human nature posited that most humans are inherently good, but he acknowledged the existence of a minority of people who might seek to exploit others for personal gain (Baumgold, 2005). He argued that as societies grew in size and complexity, individuals came together and agreed to establish a social contract. They willingly relinquished certain rights and freedoms in exchange for the government’s protection against wrongdoers and safeguarding of their rights.

This act of consenting to government establishment is the cornerstone of social contract theory, which aligns with the consensus view of crime. According to this perspective, there is a general agreement or consensus in public opinion regarding what constitutes right and wrong. Furthermore, this view posits that criminal behaviors are fundamentally harmful to society and must be either prohibited or controlled by criminal law.

Criminal laws, as a set of rules, reflect the social norms and values agreed upon by the vast majority of society. This perspective is built on the assumption that criminal law functions as a tool for maintaining social control by curbing behaviors that exploit the vulnerabilities of others for personal gain and undermine the social framework. Criminal law, therefore, operates to control behaviors that are intrinsically destructive and dangerous with the aim of preserving existing social structures and ensuring the peaceful functioning of society.

Another influential philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, gave meaningful contributions to social contract theory, offering a somewhat contrasting view. Unlike Locke’s more optimistic outlook on human nature, considering them rational and predominantly good, Hobbes adopted a more pessimistic approach (Baumgold, 2005). Hobbes characterized people as fundamentally irrational and motivated by selfishness. However, he contended that individuals were rational enough to understand that they were stronger and safer when they banded together, rather than attempting to stand alone. Hobbes argued that this self-interest rational led to the formation of social contract, in which individuals accepted the authority and legitimacy of a government. In exchange for this acceptance, the government’s role was to maintain order and protect citizens from each other (Morris, 2000).

This contrast between Locke and Hobbes provides valuable insights into different interpretations of social contract theory, offering two distinct views on human nature and the role of government in society.

1.2.2 Conflict

Unlike Locke and Hobbes, the 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that inequality and social conflict were inherent to human society due to the way people interact and how human societies grow. Rousseau argued inequality and conflict arises when human self-interest outweighs social good in a society (Morris, 2000). This is especially prevalent in societies with a division in labor, property ownership, and social hierarchies. Therefore, rather than society as a whole benefiting from governmental oversight, the development and prosecution of laws favors the ruling group and disfavors all others, creating social inequality and conflict.

The conflict view of crime fundamentally asserts that the content and definition of criminal law are intricately linked to the ongoing class struggle within society, particularly the dichotomy between the rich (haves) and the poor (have-nots). From this perspective, criminal law serves as a tool wielded by the ruling class, primarily composed of the affluent, to exert control over the disenchanted have-nots (Morris, 2000). Essentially, the law becomes a mechanism for those in power to safeguard their status by regulating the conduct of individuals who challenge their ideas, values, or the unequal distribution of wealth.

For example, laws pertaining to property crimes were structured to protect the assets and wealth of the affluent. Offenders who target the rich face severe repercussions, while those who manipulate the legal and economic system for personal gain often evade the law’s grasp, essentially operating “above the law.” Additionally, laws concerning violent crimes aim to maintain control over the discontented lower classes, while drug-related laws were established to ensure a productive workforce, particularly beneficial for affluent entrepreneurs. Violators of these laws are met with harsh punishment. In contrast, individuals involved in upper-class crimes relating to business or white-collar crimes typically receive comparatively lenient penalties, despite the substantial harm these violations cause to society.

In essence, the conflict view of crime underscores how the legal system can be used to perpetuate social inequalities and maintain the power of the privileged elite while imposing stricter control on those who challenge or oppose the existing social order. This perspective encourages a critical examination of how laws and legal processes are influenced by the dynamics of class struggle and power, ultimately shaping the definitions of crime and the responses to criminal behavior.

The key differences between the consensus and conflict perspectives lie in how a society perceives the legitimacy of the government. The consensus perspective assumes that all parties collaborate to establish a system with the aim of achieving common goals. In contrast, the conflict perspective argues that the dominant group designs a system that serves their interests without adequately considering the needs of the less fortunate. Despite these disparities, these perspectives share some common ground as they both agree that: 1) social forces and criminal law shape the definition of crime, 2) the definition of crime dynamic and subject to constant change, and 3) criminal law functions as a mechanism for social control.

 

1.3 The U.S. Criminal Justice System

The U.S. criminal justice system is a distinctive, loosely coupled network of independent agencies, distinguishable from most nations that employ centralized oversight and top-down command structures (Hagan, 1989). Commonly categorized into three distinct fields of law enforcement, courts, and corrections, the U.S. criminal justice system operates within a multitude of decentralized governmental jurisdictions, including a federal government, 50 separate states governments, Washington D.C., as well as many county and city governments. Each criminal justice agency functions under the jurisdiction of a specific government level, empowered with the authority to shape its own semi-autonomous criminal justice system. This decentralized approach provides more autonomy, allowing for better accommodations to the unique interests of each region.

Despite the positive aspects associated with each region’s ability to construct its own criminal justice system to best meet their unique needs, this decentralization of power is susceptible to poor oversight, corruption, and the appearance of randomness when it comes to crime control and punishment practices. Although criminal justice agencies have an interconnected nature of their functions, each level of government follows its distinct criminal justice process. While they frequently interact, all criminal justice agencies maintain independence from one another. This decentralized structure reflects the commitment to a system that balances national guidelines with regional autonomy in criminal justice administration.

1.3.1 Federal Criminal Justice System

The federal criminal justice system in the United States is a vast and complex structure responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating crimes that violate federal laws. The federal criminal justice system is underpinned by an intricate network of laws, regulations, and constitutional principles, ensuring due process and the protection of individual rights. The federal criminal justice system emphasizes the adherence to federal laws, with prosecutions often involving crimes that cross state lines or have a significant national impact, including cases related to immigration, drug trafficking, white-collar offenses, and national security. It operates in parallel with state and tribal criminal justice systems, with each having distinct jurisdiction and mandates.

Figure 1.4

As illustrated in Figure 1.4, the federal criminal justice system encompasses multiple federal agencies, each with specific roles and responsibilities. Among the most prominent are the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Marshals Service. These agencies are part of the Department of Justice, a key federal institution responsible for overseeing the administration of justice at the federal level. The FBI, established in 1908, operates as the nation’s primary federal law enforcement agency, conducting investigations into various federal crimes including terrorism, counterintelligence, cyber crime, public corruption, organized crime, and civil rights violations. It plays a pivotal role in intelligence gathering and homeland security efforts, often collaborating with other agencies to ensure national security. The United States Marshals Service, dating back to 1789, is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency (Office of Public Affairs, 2020). The U.S. Marshals Service focuses on security and is also responsible for apprehending fugitives, transporting of federal prisoners, and managing the security of federal witnesses. They also oversee the safe and efficient operation of the federal judiciary.

Within this system, federal law enforcement agencies investigate cases, and when appropriate, the U.S. Attorneys initiate criminal proceedings. The federal criminal justice process includes the investigation of crimes by agencies like the FBI. Cases are then presented to federal prosecutors who decide whether to bring charges. Federal prosecutors, also known as United States Attorneys, work under the Department of Justice and are responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of federal crimes. The federal courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court serve as venues for the adjudication of federal cases and federal judges preside over trials and sentencing. Rarely cases proceed through the District Courts and the Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately are addressed by the highest judicial authority, the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the few cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court concern significant legal matters or the U.S. Constitution. The sentencing guidelines and procedures in the federal system are distinct from state systems, often resulting in longer sentences.

Overall, the federal criminal justice system is crucial for addressing crimes of national concern and maintaining the rule of law at the federal level. Federal agencies, such as the FBI, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Courts are integral components for ensuring effective functioning of the criminal justice system and upholding the principles of justice within the United States.

1.3.2 State Criminal Justice

The state criminal justice system in the United States is a multifaceted framework consisting of various agencies, each with distinct roles and responsibilities. Law enforcement agencies, such as state, county, and city police, as well as tribal and campus police, operate with specific jurisdiction and duties. State patrol agencies, like state police or highway patrol, have the authority to enforce all state laws, and predominantly focus on traffic laws, patrolling highways, providing assistance to motorists, and responding to major emergencies. They also offer investigative services to other law enforcement agencies. County sheriffs oversee law enforcement in county areas for criminal, traffic, and civil matters relating to state law and local ordinance within the county. Sheriff departments are often responsible for managing county jails, serving legal documents, and ensuring courthouse security. City police provide law enforcement pertaining to criminal and traffic matters relating to state law and local ordinances. They are responsible for maintaining public order within city limits, investigating crimes, and enforcing local ordinances within the city limits. Tribal police address crimes within Native American reservations, while campus police are tasked with handling campus-related offenses and ensuring safety on college and university campuses.

While all state court systems are structured hierarchically, they are not structured exactly the same. Courts of limited jurisdiction such as district trial courts and municipal trial courts handle misdemeanors [GL/], gross misdemeanors, as well as minor offenses such as city ordinances, non-criminal traffic violations, and civil cases. Courts of general jurisdiction, such as superior trial courts handle all felony crimes and more complex and serious civil matters. The Court of Appeals reviews trial court decisions, ensuring there were no legal procedure violations or errors in the interpretation or application of law. The State Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate court, handling cases involving constitutional issues or significant legal questions.

County prosecutors, also known as district attorneys, represent the government in criminal cases and are primarily responsible for reviewing, filing, and prosecuting criminal and civil cases in violation of state or county law, prosecuting juvenile offender cases, convening and advising grand juries and drawing indictments. Public defenders, on the other hand, provide legal representation to individuals in court proceedings who cannot afford a private criminal defense attorney. Criminal defense attorneys provide legal counsel and advocacy for their clients, while also making sure the criminal justice system maintains procedural justice. Furthermore, they help the client understand the court process and advise their clients on the pros and cons of accepting a plea bargain.

Jails, although typically managed by sheriff’s departments, may also be that responsibility of the city police or the state. Jails are used by cities and counties to house individuals awaiting trial or for offenders convicted of misdemeanors and felonies with sentences of less than one year. Prisons operate at the state level and house individuals convicted of more serious offenses with longer sentences, usually greater than one year. Prisons can include different security levels, commonly separating inmates into either maximum, medium, or minimum prisons.

Community corrections programs are used as alternatives to incarceration, usually providing a more cost-effective and rehabilitative approach. Community corrections encompass probation programs which allow convicted individuals to stay in the community under supervision rather than being placed in jail or prison. Similarly, the courts might impose intermediate sanctions where the convicted individual is required to attend drug or alcohol treatment, participate in community service, or receive home confinement. Community correction programs also provide assistance and supervision after an individual is released from prison or jail. Early release and parole programs are two post-incarceration programs that allow the convicted individual to spend the last portion of their jail or prison sentence in the community under supervision.

Community corrections departments are often responsible for offender community supervision, conducting needs assessments for their clients, helping with job and program placement, administering the state’s victim and witness notification programs, and conducting pre-sentencing reports for judges.

1.3.3 Indigenous Legal Systems

Tribal or indigenous legal systems in the U.S. are deeply rooted in the rich traditions and cultural histories of Native American tribes. Unlike the mainstream American legal systems, indigenous legal systems reflect the unique values, norms, and governance structures of each tribal community. While considerable diversity exists among individual trial legal systems, they share common foundational principles related to restorative justice, consensus-based decision-making, and a profound connection to the land, and emphasize cultural traditions of healing and restoration (American Indian Policy Review Commission, 1977). Most importantly, these legal systems are an integral aspect of tribal sovereignty, enabling Native American nations to self-govern and preserve their cultural identities. It is crucial to recognize and respect the autonomy of indigenous legal systems, which play a vital role in safeguarding cultural heritage and the self-determination of Native American tribes.

Colonialism has significantly impacted indigenous legal systems, greatly influencing tribal law. The inherent sovereignty of tribal nations and their ability for self-governance have been the subject of legal disputes and negotiations with federal and state governments (Echo-Hawk, 2010). Key legislation milestones, such as the Indian Reorganization Act (1934) and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975), have been pivotal to tribal sovereignty and the fortifying indigenous legal systems.

Tribal law is a crucial factor in maintaining the self-governance and sovereignty of indigenous nations, addressing a wide array of issues related to social and criminal matters, as well as land and resource management. One defining feature of tribal law is the emphasis on community values and collective decision-making. These foundational values shape the governing bodies in indigenous legal systems, often tribal councils or traditional councils comprised of respected community members or elders (Wilkinson, 1988). Guided by tribal customs and traditions, these consensus-building councils are crucial in decision-making and dispute resolution. Restorative justice practices, rather than punitive measures, are common outcomes of collective decision-making within tribal legal systems. Typically, these outcomes underscore efforts for collective healing and rehabilitation, as well as the non-discriminatory reintegration of the violator into the community. This governance method reflects the communal approach to justice, highlighting the dynamic interplay between interconnectedness and interdependence prevalent in indigenous societies.

The maintenance of law and social order predominantly rests with legal professionals within the tribal community, such as members of the tribal police. Despite the intricate complexities in tribal law, indigenous legal systems operate collaboratively with neighboring city, state, and federal legal systems. Tribal law holds unique jurisdiction over crimes that occur within tribal territories, which are dependent on specific treaties and typically differ for tribal and non-tribal members. Consequently, in some instances, tribal law may lack jurisdiction for certain crimes committed on tribal lands by non-tribal members (Wilkinson, 1988). However, in these cases, the crime is typically addressed by a neighboring country, state, or federal legal system with overlapping jurisdiction, demonstrating the importance of effective collaboration among different American legal systems.

Given the profound spiritual and cultural significance of the land among Native American nations, many tribal legal systems incorporate principles and regulations concerning land use, hunting, fishing, and environmental stewardship (Krakoff & Rosser, 2016; Wilkinson, 1988). Consequently, tribal law is intricately linked to the preservation and protection of indigenous lands and resources, serving as an integral component of indigenous cultural preservation. In recent years, tribal nations have been actively engaged at the forefront of ecological protection and land conservation efforts, asserting their right to protect ancestral territories. The collaborative endeavors of several Native American nations have made noteworthy contributions to their longstanding tradition of advocating for environmental justice (Krakoff & Rosser, 2016).

1.3.4 The Picket Fence Model

Figure 1.5

The Picket Fence Model

The picket fence model (Sanford, 1967) also recognized as an integrated criminal justice model, elucidates the relationships among the diverse criminal justice agencies operating at the federal, state, and local tiers. As illustrated in Figure 1.5 above, this conceptual framework envisions the criminal justice system as a complex network of both vertical and horizontal interconnections among its fundamental components. In this analogy, the federal, state, and local government are likened to the three horizontal boards, and the distinct criminal justice agencies, encompassing law enforcement, courts, and corrections, are represented by the vertical boards. The space between boards symbolizes the autonomy of each criminal justice agency within the different government levels. The picket fence model envisions collaborative efforts among the horizontal criminal justice agencies during various stages of the criminal justice process, including investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and correction. Additionally, it underscores the significance of vertical coordination between federal, state, and local jurisdictions as well as the importance of promoting communication, information sharing, and collaboration among agencies to cultivate a more effective and efficient criminal justice system, ensuring a unified and expeditious response to criminal activities. However, despite the model’s aspiration for a seamless flow of information between law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections at the federal, state, and local levels, the current criminal justice system lacks a centralized information-sharing infrastructure, posing a significant obstacle to interagency and intergovernmental collaborations and diminishing the system’s responsiveness.

1.4 Perspectives of Justice

During the 1960s, the field of criminal justice experienced significant growth, prompting an increased need to clarify the intricacies of the criminal justice system. In 1964, Herbert Packer published “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” which delved into the contrast between the Due Process Model and the Crime Control Model . Packer sought to better comprehend the dynamics of the criminal law process, emphasizing its importance in determining the appropriate or substantive use of criminal sanctions. These two models represent opposing value systems. The Crime Control Model prioritizes curtailing criminal behavior and conduct, whereas the Due Process Model emphasizes safeguarding individual rights and civil liberties, even for the accused (Packer, 1964).

1.4.1 Crime Control Model

The Crime Control Model is an administrative approach that prioritizes the speed and effectiveness of the arrest and prosecution process, with strong emphasis on the strict enforcement of factual law (Christie, 2016). Advocates of this approach argue that without the rigorous enforcement of laws and subsequent punishment, societal order would crumble, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable to victimization. Packer illustrates this model as a conveyor belt or assembly line, where police routinely apprehend suspects, prosecutors are more likely to press charges on the suspect, and the courts swiftly determine the guilt of the defendant, followed by the administration of sentencing of the convicted.

Proponents of the Crime Control Model maintain that law enforcement must possess extensive investigatory powers and that procedural safeguards should be limited, even if this results in the wrongful punishment of a few individuals (Christie, 2016). They contend that convicting a small number of innocent people is preferable to allowing more citizens to fall victim to preventable criminal acts.

1.4.2 Due Process Model

On the other hand, the Due Process Model functions more like an obstacle course rather than an assembly line. Unlike the Crime Control Model, the Due Process Model emphasizes the potential for error in the justice system due to the inherent fallibility of humans (Packer, 1964). Factors such as irrationality, emotional influence, poor observation, and susceptibility to both physical and psychological coercion can lead to false confessions and inaccurate evidence. Considering the likelihood of errors in the criminal justice system, procedural justice and defendant protections, such as the right to bail, the right to an attorney and other Miranda rights, are critical mechanisms for establishing a fair criminal justice system.

1.4.3 Rehabilitation

The Rehabilitation perspective, also known as the medical model,emphasizes the belief that an offender can transform into a law-abiding citizen through appropriate interventions and programs (Pisciotta, 1994). Advocates of this perspective argue that the legal system should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders rather than merely punish the convicted. Individualized treatment focusing on therapeutic interventions, including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, counseling, anger management, as well as educational and skill development programs, should be central components of the criminal justice system process.

Figure 1.7

Another primary goal of rehabilitation is to decrease recidivism rates. With 96% of all inmates eventually re-entering society (Hughes & Wilson, 2002) and national recidivism rates ranging between 35% to 75% (Durose et al., 2014), the implementation of alternative sentencing and community-based programs should be used more frequently as the primary form of punishment (or as complementary measures to incarceration) in the criminal justice system. Such approaches have proven to be beneficial for reducing recidivism and facilitating successful reintegration to society (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).

1.4.4 Restorative Justice

While often regarded as a newer perspective in the realm of criminal justice, the practice of restorative Justice has ancient roots, with indigenous populations around the world employing it for thousands of years. Restorative justice encompasses various models, all of which suggest that the U.S. criminal justice system fails to adequately support the victim and disproportionately focuses on the offender (Tsui, 2014). Advocates of the Restorative Justice perspective argue that rather than solely concentrating on punishment or rehabilitation of the offender, a victim-centered approach should be adopted. This approach would initiate a process of repairing the harm caused by the criminal act, enabling the victim and the community to heal, while holding the offender accountable and subsequently facilitating their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Restorative justice has gained more support in the juvenile justice system, but its adoption in the adult criminal justice system has been slower (Tsui, 2014).

1.4.5 Nonintervention

The Nonintervention perspective challenges the traditional approach, arguing that in certain situations the criminal justice system can cause more harm than good. This perspective highlights how both the imprisonment and conviction of individuals for non-violent or low-level offenses can result in detrimental, adverse collateral consequences, including barriers to employment, housing, and access to food assistance, along with restrictions to individual rights such as voting or gun ownership. In addition, this approach emphasizes the importance of restricting state criminal intervention and instead advocates for the employment of decriminalization measures and implementing community-based rehabilitation or restorative programs, especially for low-level offenders, as alternative forms of punishment that gravitate away from the formal legal system.

For example, sentencing convicts to prison for low-level crimes where they interact with other criminals, particularly those involved in violent and high-level crimes, can further increase the likelihood of future criminal behavior post-release. This is exemplified by the portrayal of the character George Jung in the 2001 movie Blow, which was based on his real life. In the movie, Jung stated, “Danbury wasn’t a prison; it was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of Marijuana, came out with a Doctorate of Cocaine” (Demme, 2001, 42:53). Additionally, the isolation of convicts from the positive influence of their families and other members of their support networks as a result of incarceration also contributes to a higher likelihood of recidivism (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018).

1.4.6 Equal Justice

The equal justice perspective focuses on ensuring fairness and consistency throughout the criminal justice system. One primary goal of this approach is to eliminate bias throughout the entire criminal justice process, particularly those specific to racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic disparities (Reiman & Leighton, 2020). The argument that the U.S. criminal justice system fails to provide fair and equal justice, along with efforts to address the injustices of unequal treatment and bias in the U.S. criminal justice system have persisted throughout its history. Cesare Beccaria, whose writings significantly influenced the development of the U.S. criminal justice system, advocated for a more equitable justice system characterized by consistent forms of punishment, wherein wealth could not be used to evade the consequences of one’s actions (Harcourt, 2012).

Equal justice advocates frequently demand reforms that prioritize transparency and accountability for all individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Without these essential steps, issues stemming from racial and socioeconomic disparities will remain a challenge to the justice system, and disparities in arrest, sentencing, and incarceration will persist (Reiman & Leighton, 2020).

1.5 Criminal Justice System Process

As a result of the variations in criminal justice system procedures across various states and the federal government, there exists no singular method for preceding through the criminal justice system. Regardless of nuance in the criminal justice process across different states and the federal government criminal justice systems, they all adhere to the guidelines set forth in the U.S Constitution regarding the fair and unbiased treatment of the accused throughout the criminal justice process (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2021). Figure 1.8 below illustrates how individuals are processed into and move through the criminal justice system. Although this flowchart does not represent all criminal justice systems, it is a visual depiction intended to enhance the understanding of the general criminal justice process.

Figure 1.8

1.5.1 Crime Detection

The formal criminal justice process initiates with the detection of a law violation. Detecting law violators is a dynamic task that requires a blend of traditional investigative techniques, technological advancements, and community engagement (Braga et al., 2014). While law enforcement officials bear the formal responsibility for detecting law violations and criminal activity, the public also plays a significant role in crime detection and other phases of the criminal justice process. Instances of individuals engaging in suspicious or illegal activity may be observed either directly by a police officer or by a member of the public, who then reports the incident to the police. The collaboration between the public and law enforcement, facilitated through criminal reporting mechanisms, proves crucial in furnishing timely and accurate information essential for identifying and apprehending perpetrators (Reisig & Parks, 2000). This collaboration underscores the importance of a cooperative relationship between law enforcement and the community in maintaining public safety.

Crimes manifest across a spectrum of severity, necessitating varied responses within the criminal justice framework (FBI, 2019). When police receive a report of suspicious or illegal activity, they will issue a response typically involving one or two police officers that will arrive at the reported location to gather information, deescalate disputes, and for more serious offenses, collect evidence to establish probable cause . This evidence may lead to the arrest of a suspect or the issuance of a warrant request by a judge, allowing access to property for crucial evidence gathering to facilitate an arrest. In cases where a criminal act is directly witnessed by an officer, they confront the individuals involved, inform them about the illegality of their actions, and decide whether to proceed with arrests of any suspects. This process highlights the importance of police responsiveness and discretion in addressing a wide range of criminal activities.

The initial investigation process that unfolds prior to making any arrest varies widely in duration. The mere observation of a crime by an officer is often sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for an arrest. However, in other situations, investigations extend over years or even decades before resulting in an arrest. For instance, nearly two decades of investigations transpired that led to the apprehension and sentencing of the “Green River Killer,” Gary Ridgway, a notorious serial killer in Washington State during the early 1980s to the late 1990s (Keppel & Birnes, 1995), pictured in Figure 1.9. In contrast, certain cases, such as the mysterious DB Cooper case, remain unsolved, and after an extended period, become cold cases with no resolution. This disparity of investigation timeframes edifies the complexity of investigations and the persistence required to properly address each unique criminal case.

Figure 1.9

1.5.2 Arrest

Once probable cause has been established, officers have the authority to arrest a suspect and take them into custody, restricting their individual freedoms, including the right to depart. Once under arrest, the suspect is officially under the control of the officer, yet maintains some constitutional protections as indicated by the Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966), which must be recited by an officer only after an arrest has been made and prior to further questioning.

Figure 1.10

Law Enforcement Officer Detaining a Suspect

1.5.3 Booking

Once the suspect is arrested, they are taken to the police station, jail, or detention center for booking, which is a standard protocol in the criminal justice system designed to establish a formal record of the arrest, including the suspect’s personal information, identity, fingerprints, and mugshot. A thorough search of the suspect is also conducted, involving the removal of any personal items. In general, booking is a critical juncture crucial for determining if the suspect will be further processed by the criminal justice system. In some situations, bail for the suspect may be set during the booking process. Bail is based on an initial determination of the amount required for the suspect’s release pending further legal proceedings. This comprehensive procedure ensures timely documentation of the arrest record and initiates the formal legal proceedings against the accused.

1.5.4 Custody

While the suspect is detained, law enforcement may continue their investigation to gather additional evidence. Officers may conduct interrogations in an attempt to elicit a confession to the crime by the suspect as well as gain insights into the motives behind the alleged crime. In some cases, officers may also organize in-person or photo lineups to identify potential witnesses or further connect the suspect to the crime. The imperative to find additional evidence is heightened as law enforcement typically have a 48-hour window to detain the suspect and demonstrate probable cause to advance the case to the prosecutor (Mulroy, 2012). If, for any reason, the prosecutor believes probable cause was not established within this timeframe, they must release the suspect. This critical period underscores the efficient and thorough investigative procedures to ensure the lawful and just processing of individuals in custody.

1.5.5 Charging

Once the arresting officers believe they have gathered sufficient evidence, they allocate the case to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor undertakes a comprehensive review of the case to determine the appropriate charges to bring against the suspect, taking into consideration various factors. These factors include the severity of the crime, the quality of the evidence, potential political or social pressures, and the likelihood of the court finding the suspect guilty. Subsequently, the prosecutor has three primary options: 1) return the case to law enforcement for further investigation, 2) decline the case, a decision known as nolle prosequi , or 3) proceed to file the case in court and begin the process of officially charging the suspect of a crime. This pivotal stage in the legal process highlights the discretion and responsibility vested in prosecutors as they make crucial decisions that significantly impact the trajectory of a criminal case.

1.5.6 Preliminary Hearing

Under the U.S. Constitution, the government, represented by the prosecutor, must demonstrate probable cause that the accused has committed the alleged crimes as indicated in the charges. In all but two states, a grand jury is employed to varying extents to assess whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to proceed with the case. If the prosecutor successfully provides ample evidence, the grand jury issues a true bill of indictment , specifying the exact charges and officially charging the suspect, who then becomes the accused. In jurisdictions that do not utilize a grand jury, the prosecutor directly files charging documents with a judge. Subsequently, a preliminary hearing is scheduled, during which the prosecutor presents the merit of the evidence before a judge. Simultaneously, the defendant and defense attorney have the opportunity to challenge the prosecutor’s charges. In this process, the judge, rather than a grand jury, determines whether the evidence is substantial enough to warrant proceeding to trial. This legal procedure ensures a careful evaluation of the evidence before the case advances in the criminal justice system.

1.5.7 Arraignment

An arraignment is often scheduled after the judge or grand jury rules in favor of the prosecutor in the preliminary hearing. During the arraignment, the defendant is formally notified of the charges brought against them and is required to submit an official plea of not guilty , guilty , or no contest . Simply stated, a not guilty plea affords defendants the opportunity to formally contest the charges in court or begin the process of negotiations for a plea deal. A guilty plea, however, is an admission of guilt to the charges and allegations and leads to sentencing, which may occur immediately or transpire at a later time. On the other hand, a no contest plea allows a defendant to accept the conviction and charges without admitting guilt and is followed by sentencing that is either given immediately or at a future date. Although both a guilty plea and a no contest plea agree to the conviction and acceptance of punishment for a committed crime, a no contest plea does not admit guilt and can not be used as evidence in civil court, whereas a guilty plea can be used as evidence in civil courts. This critical stage in the legal process provides the defendant with important choices that shape the direction of the case as it is processed through the criminal justice system.

Figure 1.11

1.5.8 Bail Hearing

If bail was not set during booking, a separate bail hearing will be held to determine if the defendant can be released from jail before trial. While all defendants have the right to a bail hearing, not all defendants will be released on bail. For less serious charges and when the defendant is neither a flight risk nor poses a risk to others, they might be released on recognizance . However, for more serious charges, the judge will consider multiple variables, including the past criminal record of the accused, flight risk, and social network, to decide whether to grant bail and determine the appropriate bail amount. If the defendant possesses the financial resources to post bail, they will be released pending the final case verdict. When released on bail or on recognizance, judges often impose conditions that the defendant must follow. In cases where the defendant is denied bail or cannot afford it, they are housed in jail to await their trial.

1.5.9 Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a process in which the defense and prosecution engage in discussions regarding a potential guilty plea in exchange for various forms of leniency, such as a reduction in the number of charges, a decrease in the severity of the charge, or a more lenient sentence (Bibas, 2004). Plea bargaining can take place at any point in the legal proceedings after arraignment and before the conclusion of the trial.

1.5.10 Adjudication

If the prosecution and defendant fail to reach an agreement on a plea of guilt, the case proceeds to a criminal trial where either a jury or judge (known as a bench trial ) will determine whether the prosecutor can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the charges. The trial follows a structured process, allowing both the prosecution and defense to present their cases. The jury trial can yield a guilty verdict, a not guilty verdict, or a hung jury. After a guilty verdict, the defendant is scheduled for sentencing, whereas after a not guilty verdict, the defendant is released from custody and free to go. When the jury is unable to agree on a verdict, they are considered deadlocked or a hung jury. In such instances, the case remains unsolved, and the prosecutor must decide whether to drop the case or request a retrial at a later date.

1.5.11 Sentencing and Punishment

Once the defendant is found guilty in court or enters a guilty plea, they proceed to the sentencing phase for punishment. Punishments vary widely and can range from a small fine to life in prison, or even the death penalty (Bibas, 2004). The judge will often rely on pre-sentencing reports developed by community correction officers, the defendant’s previous criminal record, the seriousness of the crime, and other relevant variables to aid in the determination of the exact nature and length of the sentence of the state authorized punishment.

Figure 1.12

1.5.12 Corrections

Once the offender is sentenced, they are placed under the authority of the local, state or federal corrections departments. An offender may be placed on probation, in a community corrections facility, rehabilitation center, jail, or prison (Bibas, 2004). Offenders placed in jail or prison may have the opportunity to participate in rehabilitation, workforce, and education programs, depending on the available offerings at the corrections facility. Following the successful completion of a jail or prison sentence, ex-offenders are released into society, typically under some form of parole or community corrections supervision.

Figure 1.13

1.5.13 Community Corrections

While prison and jail are commonly associated with corrections, it is essential to recognize that a significant portion of individuals under the jurisdiction of corrections departments are within the community corrections system. Community corrections serve either as an alternative punishment to incarceration (e.g. community service, probation, house arrest) or as a post-release supervision process designed to assist ex-offenders to reintegrate into society while providing oversight to protect the community (Bibas, 2004). Individuals in the community corrections system are not entirely free, as they may be subject to drug tests, random house searches, or the loss of various privileges, such as voting rights, driver’s licenses, and gun ownership.

1.6 Criminal Justice Funnel

In his seminal work, “Two Models of the Criminal Process,” published in 1964, Herbert Packer characterized the criminal justice system as a continuous processing assembly line of endless criminal cases. This foundational conceptualization delineates the sequential stages and gradual attrition of cases within the criminal justice system, emphasizing the ways in which cases might be diverted at any stage of the process and thereby prevent them from reaching the end of the assembly line.

Figure 1.14

As depicted in Figure 1.14, for every 1,000 serious felonies committed, only half are ever reported to the police, with the remaining 500 serious felonies categorized as dark figures due to never being reported. Among the 500 reported felonies, only 100 arrests will be made as 400 cases remain unsolved. Out of these 100 arrests, 35 cases are diverted to the juvenile court, while the remaining 65 cases are sent to the prosecutor’s office to await consideration for prosecution. Among the 35 juvenile cases, 30 are either dismissed or placed on probation, and 5 juveniles are incarcerated. Regarding the 65 adult cases sent to the prosecutor’s office, 40 cases are accepted by the prosecutor and the other 25 are dropped. Out of the 40 prosecuted cases, 10 defendants either abscond or jump bail , leaving only 30 cases for the trial process. Among these, 27 cases end in a guilty plea, 2 result in a guilty verdict, and 1 concludes with an acquittal. Ultimately, for approximately every 1,000 serious felony crimes that transpire, only 20 adult offenders are incarcerated, and 9 are placed on probation.

1.7 Wedding Cake Model

The U.S. criminal justice system is a multifaceted institution, often examined through various models and perspectives. One model that provides insights into the differential treatment of cases within the criminal justice system is the “Wedding Cake Model.” Developed by Samuel Walker (2010), this model offers a framework for comprehending how cases are stratified and prioritized by both the media and society. It also sheds light on the complexities involved in criminal justice processing.

The Wedding Cake Model enhances our understanding of the functioning of the criminal justice system, and it underscores the influence of media attention on public perceptions of crime, the frequency of criminal incidents, and the overall operation of the criminal justice system. Walker (2010) classifies different types of cases into four distinct tiers based on their characteristics and implications. The size of each tier corresponds to the number of cases of that type handled by the criminal justice system. As illustrated in Figure 1.15 below, this model takes the general shape of a cylindrical pyramid that is divided into four separate tiers.

Figure 1.15

Celebrated Cases: In Walker’s model, the topmost layer is composed of a select few celebrated cases. These cases are characterized by being high-profile, headline-grabbing news stories that garner extensive national publicity and significant media coverage. Typically, these cases involve sensational crimes such as gruesome or very serious offenses, a large number of people, substantial amounts of money, or well-known individuals. Although these types of cases are rare, they receive the most attention and resources from the criminal justice system. As Walker (2010) notes, celebrated cases “usually involve the full criminal process, including that rare event, the criminal trial” (p. 40). News media outlets provide in-depth coverage of the trials of these high-profile cases, often emphasizing the unfolding drama. While this type of coverage serves as a form of public entertainment and boosts news outlet ratings, it consequently distorts the public’s perception of crime and criminal procedure. It is crucial to dispel the common misconception that most cases go to trial, as roughly 90% of criminal cases end in a guilty plea (Motivans, 2022). Furthermore, the vast majority of cases receive little to no publicity, despite the widespread misconceptions about the criminal process perpetuated by extensive news coverage of a single, highly publicized crime-based media event.

Serious Felonies: The subsequent tier encompasses serious felonies that may involve significant crimes like murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, or burglaries. While cases in this tier still undergo rigorous legal processes, they receive less attention and fewer resources compared to the celebrated cases in the top tier. Despite this tier consisting of only a small percentage of overall crimes, they are frequently reported in the local or state media, and we often hear about these types of crimes on a weekly or even daily basis.

Less Serious Felonies: The third tier comprises less serious felony offenses like drug crimes, property offenses, or certain white-collar violations. These offenses are often committed by young or first-time offenders or involve individuals who are acquainted or related. While still considered serious, these cases lack the sensational nature of the previous tiers and typically receive minimal to no attention from the media and the public. Generally, these cases undergo quicker criminal justice processing, including plea bargains, reduced charges, outright dismissal, or, most commonly, a probationary sentence. Despite these types of cases occurring more frequently than the previous two tiers combined, the lack of media coverage and public attention contributes to the distortion in the public’s perception of common crime types.

Misdemeanors: The final tier, forming the base of the Wedding Cake Model, consists of misdemeanors. This is the largest tier in the diagram as this type of crime constitutes the majority of criminal cases. This tier consists of misdemeanors, which are relatively minor offenses like petty theft, public intoxication, and traffic violations. These offenses typically result in less punitive punishments such as fines, probation, or short jail sentences. Despite the fact that cases in this tier make up the majority of all criminal cases, they receive the least attention from the media and the public, which further distorts the public’s perception of crime. Unlike cases in Layer I and Layer II, which demand due process, cases in this tier prioritize processing speed. The primary goal is to resolve these cases quickly through summary procedures, processing them en masse, reflecting the lower priority given to these cases by the criminal justice system.

The Wedding Cake Model highlights two significant issues. First, the extensive media coverage of high profile cases distorts perceptions of the likelihood of more serious and gruesome crimes. Layer I cases receive more continuous media attention through the investigation, arrest, trial, and appeals process, which can span several years. These cases are also frequently featured in podcasts, documentaries, television shows, and movies, repeatedly exposing the public to a single high-profile case while thousands of low-profile cases go unnoticed. Inconsistent media coverage of different crime types leads to the misconception that high-profile cases are common, distorting the public’s understanding of crime incidence in society.

Secondly, this model underscores the unequal treatment of cases within the criminal justice system. The processing and outcome of cases are influenced by various factors, including the type and severity of the crime, public interest, the offender’s criminal record, the relationship between the victim and offender, and available resources. Despite these disparities, there is a common misconception that most cases receive the same level of oversight and due process as high-profile cases. While not exhaustive, this model has played a crucial role in our comprehension of sentencing disparities and resource allocation in the criminal justice system.

Figure 1.16

References

American Indian Policy Review Commission. (1977). American Indian Policy Review Commission final report submitted to Congress May 17, 1977. Volume one of two volumes. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164229

Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Armstrong, G. S. (2018). Disentangling the relationship between social ties, prison visitation, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(10), 1507-1526. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385481877232

Baumgold, D. (2005). Hobbes’s and Locke’s contract theories: Political not metaphysical. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230500187169

Bernard, T. J., & Engel, R. S. (2001). Conceptualizing criminal justice theory. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100094801

Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2463-2547. https://doi.org/10.2307/4093404

Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2021, June 3). The justice system. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/justice-system

Christie, N. (2016). Crime control as industry: Towards gulags, western style. Routledge.

Demme, T. (Director). (2001). Blow. [Film]. New Line Cinema.

Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014, April). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

Echo-Hawk, W. R. (2010). In the courts of the conqueror: The 10 worst Indian law cases ever decided. Fulcrum Publishing.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019). Crime in the U.S. 2019. U.S. Department of Justice. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019

Forest Service. (n.d.). Forest Service careers. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/careers

Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. Rutgers University Press.

Harcourt, B. E. (2012). The illusion of free markets: Punishment and the myth of natural order. Harvard University Press.

Hughes, T. A., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Reentry trends in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/reentry-trends-united-states

Keppel, R. D. & Birnes, W. J. (1995). The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I hunt for the Green River Killer. Pocket Books.

Krakoff, S., & Rosser, E. (Eds.). (2016). Tribes, land, and the environment. Routledge.

Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833

Morris, C. W. (Ed.). (2000). The social contract theorists: Critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Motivans, M. A. (2022). Federal justice statistics, 2021. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-justice-statistics-2021

Mulroy, S. J. (2012). “Hold” on: The remarkably resilient, constitutionally dubious 48-hour hold. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 63(3), 815-867. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol63/iss3/6

Office of Public Affairs. (2020). U.S. Marshals Service [Fact sheet]. U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.usmarshals.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2020-Overview.pdf

Ortiz, E. (2021, October 14). Alex Murdaugh faces charges related to missing funds meant for housekeeper’s estate. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-murdaugh-%20arrested-accused-obtaining-property-false-pretenses-rcna2547

Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1-68. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol113/iss1/1

Pisciotta, A. W. (1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory prison movement. New York University Press.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2020). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Thinking critically about class and criminal justice (12th ed.). Routledge.

Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607-630. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094681

Sanford, T. (1967). Storm over the states. McGraw-Hill.

Tsui, J. (2014). Breaking free of the prison paradigm: Integrating restorative justice techniques into Chicago’s juvenile justice system. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(3), 635-665. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss3/5/

Walker, S. (1992). Origins of the contemporary criminal justice paradigm: The American Bar Foundation Survey, 1953–1969. Justice Quarterly, 9(1), 47-76.

Walker, S. (2010). Sense and nonsense about crime, drugs, and communities: A policy guide (7th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.

Wilkinson, C. F. (1988). American Indians, time, and the law: Native societies in a modern constitutional democracy. Yale University Press.