CHAPTER 13

Chapter 13: Criminology and Social Policy

The National Criminal Justice Commission Recommendations
In 1996 the National Criminal Justice Commission, a project of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, in Alexandria, Virginia released its report on American criminal justice. The report, entitled The Real War on Crime, was the result of a 2-year undertaking by a non-partisan group of citizens and experts intended to assess the state of America's criminal justice system. The goals of the Commission were to provide a comprehensive assessment of the American criminal justice system, to offer solutions to reduce violence, to recommend policies to make American communities safer, and to determine if America's "war on crime" has been a worthwhile undertaking.

The Commission made "10 recommendations to shift the fundamental direction of U.S. crime policy." Those recommendations, which are reproduced here in the original wording provided by the Commission, were:

Decrease the reliance on prisons as the primary response to criminal behavior. Impose a three-year moratorium on new prison construction until a systematic assessment of prison needs can be completed. Replace many prison sanctions with alternative programs that are less expensive and often more effective at reducing crime.

Replace the war on drugs with a policy of harm reduction where the police work with public health professional to stem illegal drug use. Drug addiction should be treated as a public health challenge rather than a criminal justice problem.

Balance criminal justice spending with resources spent on other civic activities. Stop doing what doesn't work, and invest resources in proven prevention programs and other crime fighting alternatives.

Restore the internal balance of the criminal justice system so judges have more discretion at sentencing and victims of crime receive better treatment by the court system.

Commission an independent clearinghouse to gather and report objective criminal justice information to the public. The clearinghouse should be separate from the Department of Justice.

At all levels of government create crime councils to develop a coordinated anti-crime strategy. This council should be created at the city, county, state, and national level. They should include representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors, social service professionals, public health specialists, child welfare officials, crime victims, and representatives of other government agencies concerned with crime prevention.

Reduce violence by using innovative approaches developed in the field of public health; and reduce the harmful effects of violence by passing gun control legislation at the federal level.

Commit ourselves to reducing poverty in order to reduce street crime. Funds should be provided so each child can enter an early childhood development program.

Eliminate racial bias and reduce racial disparity with the criminal justice system.

Shift ourselves for an agenda of "war" to an agenda of "peace." Wars against American citizens are wars that nobody can win.

Source: The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives world wide web site, January 2, 1997.
Summary
While crime has always been a part of American society, comprehensive efforts at crime control, at least at the federal level, originated during the depression years of the twentieth century. Efforts to reduce crime, however, while well intentioned, are fraught with political uncertainties resting largely upon fundamental disagreements within American society itself as to the sources of crime and the most appropriate means for combating it. Bryan Vila, whose work we have cited throughout this chapter, summarizes the contemporary situation this way: "Lack of a unified criminological framework has fostered shortsighted, inconsistent, and ineffective crime-control policies. Theoretical ambiguity made it easier for policymakers to base their decisions on politics rather than science. Lacking a reasonable complete and coherent explanation of the causes of crime, they have been free to shift the focus of crime-control efforts back and forth from individual-level to macro-level causes as the political pendulum swung from right to left. This erratic approach hindered crime-control efforts and fed the desperate belief that the problem of crime is intractable."(1)

Although answers to the crime problem appear to face formidable obstacles, all may not be lost. Fundamental social changes, including the development of high moral values through education, the elimination (or significant reduction) of poverty, increased opportunities for success at all levels, and decriminalization of certain offenses may all be combined someday into a workable strategy for the management of criminal activity within the United States. In any event, major inroads into the crime problem cannot be made until American society, and especially those parts of it which are now accepting of criminal activity and the conditions that produce it, undergo a fundamental change in orientation.
Discussion Questions
Note: you may be requested by your instructor to e-mail the answers to these questions to his or her office. If so, be sure to add your name (or other identifying information) to your answers, since your e-mail address may not tell your instructor who you are.

Click here for e-mail homework form!

What are the two major policy approaches discussed in this chapter. What are the major differences between the two? With which do you most closely identify? Why?

What are the three types of crime-control strategies this chapter describes? Which comes closest to your own philosophy? Why?

Explain the social epidemiological approach to reducing crime. In your opinion is the approach worthwhile? Why or why not?

If you were in charge of government crime reduction efforts, what steps would you take to control crime in the United States? Why would you choose those?

Notes
(1) Vila, "Could We Break the Crime Control Paradox?" p. 3.

Back to Criminology Today Home Page
Back to Chapter Links

Legal Statement