Crime Control Policy in Criminal-Justice System

         
Khaled Elsharkawy

Abstract

Crime control and crime prevention have become a more significant issue in the criminal-justice system.  Crime control policy considers to be a preservative approach to focus on protecting society from criminals through the regulating of criminal behavior and justice. We can’t be represented properly know the crime law and crime control policy without considering its historical roots (Sung, n.d). We can understand the power of early English common-law courts to create new crimes. This force has shrunk steadily with the growth of criminal law's legislation issued by Parliament (DeVault, Miller & Griffin, 2016). In the United States, were the States and locality are responsible for preventing and controlling the crime.  The Crime rates have continued to increase in all over the country throughout the 1960 to 1970. In 1980s, the federal government has increased its participation in the crime control efforts over the period the ten years (1984-1994), Congress passed five bills to control the crimes and increased the appropriations for federal and local law enforcement agencies.  Crime control policy indicates to laws, regulations, and government actions that are designed to control criminal acts. Crime control policy gives law enforcement and justice systems to criminal greater emphasis on creating comfortable environments to increase police man power, what the legal ramifications of crime victims and the establishment of nationals of program's more efficient fight against crime also seek to deter crime through the threat of severe punishment (Saleh, & Vincent, 2004). 

The historical of crime control model in criminal justice

The crime control model emphasizes the orderly and speedy processing of defendants through the court system and the uniform punishment of offenders according to the seriousness of their crimes. Under this model, arrest and prosecution tend to feel guilty (Kraska, 2006). We can understand the power of early English common-law courts to create new crimes. This force has shrunk steadily with the growth of criminal law's legislation issued by Parliament (DeVault, Miller & Griffin, 2016). The need for an effective strategy to control crime has been debated for years. The goals of the American justice system can be classified into two distinct tasks: (1) The need for law enforcement and the maintenance of social order and (2) The need to protect people from injustice (Gilling, 2014). The first objective of the crime-control model is developed by Herbert Packer and introduced to the academic world in his analysis of the criminal-justice  system in 1960. This primary model places the arrest of criminals, prosecution, and conviction them (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, 2016). In the United States, were the States and locality are responsible for preventing and controlling the crime.  The Crime rates have continued to increase in all over the country throughout the 1960 to 1970. In 1980s, the federal government has increased its participation in the crime control efforts over the period the ten years (1984-1994), Congress passed five bills to control the crimes and increased the appropriations for federal and local law enforcement agencies. After 9/11, the effort increased to counter the terrorism and maintain the homeland security (DeVault et al, 2006).   

The laws and policies that historically addressed crime control model.

The principle of crime control focuses on (1) the vindicating victims right rather than on the rights of the criminals, (2) The legal formalities that bind the police should be limited, (3) The police officers should be carefully selected, trained adequately, and given confidence in the fact-finding and arrest procedures, and (4) Defendants should be the main function of criminal justice because security is a necessary condition for a free society (McElvain, Kposowa, & Gray, 2013). Historically, the two dominant approaches to the principle of crime control have been the model of deterrence and the model of rehabilitation. More recently, the prevention model has emerged as an alternative crime control system. There is a comprehensive historical or exhaustive liberal description of how to control crime revolves about the idea that we can understand the development of crime control strategies by thinking about punishment, controlling adaptation in the free market, and socially conservative policies that came to dominate the United States in the 1980s (Sung, 2012). In authoritarian states, criminal-justice systems rely upon the law enforcement punishment system for maintenance on the system produces higher rates of arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment (Sung, 2012).

Crime control and due process

Crime control and due process models are believing that offenders should be punished for their offences.  Crime control advocates prioritize government authorities to protect society, while advocates of the due process considered for limiting government interference (Macdonald, 2008). Under the principle of crime control, criminal justice should focus more on victims' rights than on the rights of the offenders. Under the principle of the due process, the function of criminal justice is to ensure the fundamental legal and judicial procedures established by law (Vîlcica, 2014).

Stop and frisk and crime control

Terry v. Ohio (1968) first established that pedestrian stops and frisks became constitutional. This case states that officers act only when they have reasonable doubt that the pedestrian involved is linked to a criminal activity. Terry states that the officer may conduct a limited search or frisk, of the infant during the break if the pedestrian is believed to be carrying a weapon that could endanger the life of the officer or the public at risk.  Widespread use of stop and frisk under Terry is aimed to prevent and control crime by deterring individuals from carrying weapons and drugs. (Fyfe, 2004).

The current state of the crime control policy in criminal justice

The crime control is how to effectively reduce the current and future number of crimes, which still does not receive the level of policy attention it deserves. The policies that reduce crime, such as those taken by police, courts, prosecutors, and correction authorities, can control the crimes. Where crime prevention efforts seek to thwart crimes that occur, attempts to control crime focus on restricting, monitoring and detaining offenders who have already committed crimes (Oliver, & Marion, 2007). The crime control has emphasized the use of legislative measures as well as various other mechanisms of control, deficiency, and restraint. Crime control in the United States of America has confirmed the use of legislative measures to monitor and prevent offenders from committing their crimes (Oliver, & Marion, 2007). Various legislative measures to control the crime have led to the prolongation of the sentence, the expansion of the list of federal crimes, and the notification of offenders of sexual offenses. Because of rising crime rates during the 1960s, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. We Were established law enforcement assistance to recruit, fund, promote, train, and educate law enforcement officials. The 1994 the Violent Crimes and Law Enforcement Act included a list of federal crimes eligible for the death penalty, adds the three-strikes condition life imprisonment for the perpetrator for the third time, prohibits the manufacture of semi-automatic weapons except the military and police (Oliver, & Marion, 2007).

 The current data for crime control

To understand and explain the data of crime control, the researcher needs a precise number of occurrence (Smith, 2005). Crime statistics represent charges of criminal behavior and offenders. It is usually uniform data on crimes and criminals derived from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), official agencies of criminal justice, and non-official sources such as surveys and research on offenses and offenders (Weisburd, Groff, & Yang, 2014).  According to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), crime control programs require relevant data to design and evaluate the programs. Many of the modern strategies to control crime, pre-trial detention, professional criminal programs, and mandatory provisions often require the availability of substantial data to distinguish between offenders. Many programs also require data not normally found in criminal-justice records and may require the establishment of new standard systems, the development of new links between registry systems, and related policy reviews. Official crime control statistics at different levels of government such as a municipal, state, and federal are issued by a variety of criminal-justice agencies (police, court, and corrections) and at various stages of the criminal-justice process: arrest, prosecution, conviction, imprisonment, and parole (Weisburd et al 2014). 

 The trends are for crime control.

According to DeVault, Miller and Griffin (2016), There are three priorities for control crimes (1) Reducing the number and severity of crimes committed by violent offenders. We can reduce the number and severity of crimes committed by violent offenders by keeping them on the side on the prison walls and their victims with restorative justice on the other side. The truth is that most of these serious offenders do not live behind bars but are subject to parole or probation, which minimizes the degree of supervision and control. Several new practices and technologies, such as web monitoring, mandatory compliance with subsidized drugs, day reporting, and automatic sanctions provided important opportunities to expand the capabilities of parole and probation officers to control the criminal behavior and activity of these violent (2) Reducing the number of high- rate criminals in the future. Efforts to reduce the number of violent offenders should focus primarily on prevention through deterrence and rehabilitation. It is important to give juvenile offenders a mix of sanctions and services that will bring them back on track before they become violent offenders. It is necessary to impose on the juvenile’s punitive punishments that will deter them with the opportunity to get the education and social skills that make a possible success. The criminal-justice system can reduce the future number of violent offenders through both deterrence and rehabilitation (DeVault et al, 2006). Research has shown that the most important deterrent factors in crime in the future is the speed and consistency of punishment and not cruelty punishment. (3) Strengthening and evaluating crime-resistant communities. Some communities are less able than others to resist or limit crime. Broken windows, trash piles, and juveniles harassing passers all this reference to potential criminal’s place, where laws can be easily broken and then increase the crime rate. Community police, public, and private agencies represent the commitment of living assistance to make themselves more resistant to crime. Prosecutors, courts and correction's agencies help the police to address how to strengthen neighborhoods against the threat of crime (DeVault et al, 2006).