The Weaknesses Of The U.S. Criminal Justice System Essay Example for Free

The Weaknesses Of The U.S. Criminal Justice System Essay Introduction The Michael Jackson, a continuation of the an epic cycle of celebrity trials that started with O.J. Simpson, passing through Kobe Bryant, Robert Blake and Phil Spector have undoubtedly brought to the fore concerns about the American Criminal Justice System1. The verdict of the Michael Jackson trial, delivered on June 13 2005, capped the chain of events that was sparked off by the broadcast of Living With Michael Jackson a TV documentary programme by British journalist Martin Bashir. Like every other celebrity trial in history, the Michael Jackson trial offered a cocktail of fame, sex and violence. It provided an opportunity to look behind the veil that normally protects the private lives of celebrities. However, most importantly, it brought to the fore questions about the politics that influence the U.S. Criminal Justice System2 In the last couple of decades, there have been growing concerns about the politising of criminal justice in the United States and the increasing punitive approach to crime control. It has been argued that the criminal justice system is in decline in its goal of crime control3. The last few decades have witnessed dramatic increase in the number of American citizens in prison and other custody facility, but this has not translated to decrease in crime rates. Beck and Paige4 reports that the 1990s saw an unprecedented rise in the United State’s incarceration population. They reported that in 1990, there were approximately 1.1 million US citizens incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities, by the year 2000, this figure has increased to 2,071,686. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, corroborating the above fact, states that the rate of incarceration in the U.S. increased from 292 inmates per 100,000 US residents in 1990 to 478 at year-end 20005. Unfortunately, this increasing toughness on crime has not in anyway translated to reduction in crime. In a study released by the US Department of Justice in June6, entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, it was reported of the approximately 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67 percent were are-arrested within the first three years. Compared to a similar study done in 1983 where 62 percent of prisoners released were re-arrested, the growing ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system becomes apparent. The rest of this essay intends to adequately support the argument that the United States Criminal Justice system is weak and ineffective, using the 2005 Michael Jackson trial as a yardstick. In this regard, the rest of the essay will be structured thus: The next section will provide a brief review of the Michael Jackson trial. This will be followed by an analysis of the United States Criminal Justice System. This section will detail factors that have been indicted as responsible for the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system and also attempt to examine how these factors have come to play in the Michael Jackson trial. The last part of the essay shall provide a summary of the argument thus far, and then a conclusion. The chain of events that characterised the Michael Jackson trial started with the broadcast in February 2003 of Living With Michael Jackson, an unflattering television documentary by British-Pakistani journalist Martin Bashir7. In the programme, the boy was shown holding hands with Jackson and resting on his shoulders. In November of the same year, California police authorities searched Jacksons Neverland Ranch after child molestation allegations were made against him. Later that month, Jackson was booked and arrested on child molestation charges and released on $3 million bail8.   Formal charges were filed against Jackson in December of the same year and in April 2004, a grand jury indicted Jackson on charges of molesting the boy at the centre of the trial, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold him and his family captive in 2003. Jackson, however, pleaded not guilty and did not testify during the trial, though testimony and losing arguments lasted about 14 weeks before the jury took over the case9. The Grand jury proceedings started in March and by April 21 2004, indicted Jackson10.   The grand jury was composed of nineteen jurors; the indictment required the votes of at least twelve of them. Prosecution witnesses testified without defence cross-examination. The judge ruled that witnesses before the grand jury could talk to defence attorneys about their knowledge of the case as long as the witnesses did not tell what they saw in the grand jury room or what questions they were asked and their answers11. Later in April, after the indictment, a sudden change in Michael Jacksons defence team was announced.   Ben Brafman and Mark Geragos were replaced with Robert Blakes defence attorney Thomas Mesereau12. According to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, tension from the Jackson family from not having Geragos full attention, because of the Scott Peterson death penalty case being at trial, and quick responses to their questions regarding media coverage of Michaels case were the reasons for the dismissal13. The jury selection for the trial started on January 31, 2005, and lasted less than a month. Twelve members of the jury, comprising eight women and four men, were selected from a pool of 200 people from the Santa Barbara County. The twelve member jury, ranging from 20-79years old had no single Black American, although, there was one African-American juror in the eight alternate jurors (four men, four women), selected for the case14. The trial, as it unfolds, was full of scandalous testimonies, dramatic moments and lots of celebrity defence. While, on the one hand, prosecutors alleged that in the aftermath of the Bashir documentary in 2003, Jackson and five others, who where not indicted, have contrived to control and intimidate the childs family in other to get them to cooperate with damage control efforts, including forcefully keeping them at Neverland against their will15; on these grounds, Jackson was charged with four counts of lewd conduct with a child younger than 14; one count of attempted lewd conduct; four counts of administering alcohol to facilitate child molestation; and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment or extortion16. On the other hand, Jacksons lawyers consistently portrayed him as a naive victim of the childs family, who were allegedly schemers and good at extorting money from rich and famous people. There were 91 prosecution and 50 defence witnesses throughout the trial period17. In May 2005 the witnesses for the defence testified. Closing arguments of both sides were presented in the beginning of June and on the 13th of June, 2005, the jury, after a 37hour deliberation that spanned seven days, announced Jackson not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges18. However, and most importantly for this discussion is the consequences of the trial. The aftermath of the trial witnessed several allegations of jury misconduct and several criticisms tossed back at Janet Arvizo, the mother of the accuser19. Among the several jury misconduct allegations, the fifth jury admitted to illegally bringing in a medical text to show Jackson fit the books definition of a paedophile, while also conceding to have winked Michael Jacksons mother, Katherine Jackson, even though jurors are supposed to avoid all such communication, no matter how innocent. Furthermore, she claimed that there were three devoted fans of Michael Jackson in the jury, who made it clear from the start that they would never convict Michael Jackson (with one referring to him affectionately as my Michael), while she herself allegedly came in on the jury with the sole intent of convicting Jackson and later writing a book about it. When Jackson was acquitted, her book deal fell through20. Jurors Cook and Hultman also claimed that the juror foreman, Paul Rodriguez, threatened to remove them from the jury, unless they agreed to acquit Jackson, even though jurors cannot be removed from a jury simply because they dont agree with the others. Both jurors expressed regret about acquitting Jackson (Jackson Juror Sues over Book Deal, 2005). Also, in the aftermath of the trial, Janet Arvizo, the mother of the accuser, was charged with welfare fraud on August 2005 for allegedly collecting nearly $19,000 in payments while making false claims21. During her testimony at the Jackson trial, Arvizo cited the Fifth Amendment against criminal self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions about how she succeeded in illegally obtaining welfare payments while having more than $30,000 in the bank. However, during the defence case, a Jackson lawyer walked a California Department of Social Services representative through Arvizos welfare applications, pointing out how she repeatedly failed to disclose, as required by law, assets and financial assistance she was receiving. Among many devastating criticisms tossed at Arvizo during the Jackson trial, the welfare fraud allegations were particularly damaging since they appeared to be backed by government documents22. Though this cases finally died, the lapses that came to the fore as a consequence of the trial, especially allegations of influences on the jury and other misconducts, undoubtedly re-affirms the concern that the American criminal justice system is greatly politicised, ineffective and weak. The rest of this essay will examine the nature of the American criminal justice system with a view to ascertaining influences or factors that have contributed to this weakness. Criminal Justice refers to the system used by government to maintain social control, prevent crime, enforce laws, and administer justice. The police, prosecution, courts and corrections facilities are the major component of any criminal justice system23. To be most effective, criminal justice systems must not only seek to punish offenders, but also attempt to rehabilitate and successfully re-integrate offenders into the larger society, so that they can become law abiding and useful citizens. Anything short of this goal should be unacceptable24. Unfortunately, most modern criminal justice systems take an ineffective punitive approach to crime control. The last few decades in the United States has witnessed increasing emphasis on incarceration as a crime control tool, with a political mandate to â€Å"get tough on crime† as opposed to using alternative sanctions. This effort has failed to combat crime, in most cases; it has further increased crime rates25. As mentioned earlier on, in a study released by the US Department of Justice in June 2002, entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, it was found that of the nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 States in 1994, 67 percent were re-arrested within three years; while a study of 1983 prison releases estimated that 62 percent re-arrested within the same timeframe26. This shows that despite the increasing number of incarcerated populations, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in combating crime is reduced considerably. It becomes very obvious that the several environmental factors which includes legal, culturally and political influences on the American criminal justice system has produced a weak, fragmented and utterly ineffective criminal justice system27. The organisational environment of any system can be described as any external phenomenon, event, group or individual which may compose of technological, legal, political, economic, demographic, ecological and cultural forces that affect such a system28. Kolfas and colleagues further contend that as environmental conditions change, demands for service, legal resources and positions on policy and programs of both public and private organizations may change. They then explained that in adapting to these new demands, constraints and pressures may alter the mission or policy of the organization. Relating this to the criminal justice system, for example, increasing the number of arrests as a result of an increase in crime and public pressure will impact on the criminal justice system. The populations of jails will increase and court dockets and caseloads of prosecuting attorneys will expand29. Governments and essentially, the political climate is another strong organisational environment that could affect any organisation, especially the criminal justice system. For example, government’s response to political conditions can be passed on to an organisation and its agencies within the system30. Governments can be influenced to change budgets and mandates, and to alter the composition of top administrative personnel. It can be argued that such change in organisational environment has led to the development and application of several justice models throughout history. Cole and Smith31 identified seven justice models that have been developed and used from the 1600s through to the 1990s. These includes: the colonial, penitentiary, reformatory, progressive, medical, community and crime control. As the political climate changed in the 1970s and 1980s, a renewed emphasis on the crime control model of corrections developed. The crime control model emphasizes efficiency and the capacity to catch, try, convict and punish a high proportion of offenders; it also stresses speed and finality over the caution against the possibility of innocent people being adversely impacted32. One can argued that these above mentioned components of the crime control model are actually deficiencies and could be part of the reasons why the US criminal justice system is fragmented and not functioning at optimum level. Besides environmental or external influences, the structure of the American criminal justice system lends itself to faults and inefficiency. The U.S. criminal justice system is designed sequentially with interrelated parts. For example, decisions in the criminal justice system are made in a specific order33. The police must make the arrest before the offender is prosecuted, the prosecutor’s decisions determine the nature of the court’s activity, prosecutors and judges cannot bypass the police and make arrests and corrections officials cannot punish anyone who has not been through the earlier states of the process 34. This process creates an exchange relationship among the key decision makers in the criminal justice system that could impact goals, objectives and policy development35. In this light, it appears that a â€Å"cause and effect† relationship exists for every decision made by system members and this; undoubtedly can greatly impact system efficiency and outcomes. Moreover, between these different segments of the criminal justice system, difference in the goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation create differing operating policies that not only affect the efficiency and outcomes of the system, but also how the society at large, and the offenders in particular, view the system. While the public continue to see the system as unjust    the results of national research commissioned by the Open Society Institute, part of the Soros foundations network, discovered that 65 percent of Americans believe that the countrys criminal justice system comprises an ineffective, purely punitive approach to crime 36; the criminal justice professionals are also becoming more cynical about the systemic functions of the criminal justice system, which is perceived as becoming more preoccupied with case processing efficiencies rather than justice and crime control37. Criminal justice experts argue that the criminal justice system is not a system at all but a sequence of autonomous agencies and activities, each one generating a caseload for another, and each one competing for adequate resources from the public purse 38. There is a universal dissatisfaction among all players in the system: offenders feel injustices, which hinder rehabilitation; victims are re-victimised by the system because of inadequate coordination of services; the public believes that justice was not done; and criminal justice professionals are cynical because case processing supersedes the preferred system outcomes39. An overview of the components of the criminal justice system could only help to further strengthen this argument. The police is in most cases, the foremost agency in the criminal justice system. However, most police departments function within the crime control model, and remain enforcement oriented. The priorities of most police departments are largely independent of the influence of the police agency’s external environment 40. Regardless of the rate and types of crime a police jurisdiction experiences, police administrators view protecting the public from crime as a priority, with less interest in providing services or order maintenance functions41. This crime control approach is narrow but popular and neglects the community-based service and order maintenance activities 42. Therefore one can argue that the crime control philosophy of the U.S. police force and the influence of the crime control model itself exacerbate police operating policies and also contribute to certain levels of systemic fragmentation. In the same vein, it is apparent that the crime control model of justice also impacts on the prosecutorial component of the U.S. criminal justice system. It is argued that contemporary prosecutorial systems focus on mass case processing because of the influence of the crime control model. It requires prosecutors and judges to work too closely together in an attempt to achieve case processing efficiency. The crime control model compels judges to adhere to the sentencing recommendations of prosecuting attorneys, pre-sentence recommendations can develop into recommendations from the prosecutor, and probation officers’ pre-sentence reports become incidental 43. From this arrangement, one can infer that since the prosecutor drives the criminal case, this process could have an adverse impact on individual rights, due process and the effective overall effective administration of justice. While the crime control model could also impact on the court system, influencing mass production and prosecution of criminal cases and requiring the judges to act in unison with the prosecutors, there appears to be another significant problem with the American court systems. The majority of American trial courts are highly decentralised, with local judges deciding cases that pass through the courts and also administering the court. Although, this is so structured so that courts are close to the people and thus responsive to their values, this arrangement makes courts subject to local political influences and community values44. While some might argue that the courts are intentionally structured for these reasons, so that in the process, each court develops its own legal culture with differing ways to administer rules, procedures and justice, there are grave disadvantages of this arrangement. Beside disadvantages such as differences among local court cultures and decisions, duplication of process and poor use of legal resources, there are worst problems, and as evident in the Michael Jackson trial, this arrangement makes the court and in essence the whole criminal justice system open and susceptible to external political, culturally etc influences; therefore undermining the criminal justice system in entirety45. Irrespective of what has been said so far, one important characteristic of the U.S. criminal justice system, and perhaps a trend in most Western countries, is the increasing use of crime as a political issue. The special task force of federal state and local law enforcement officials, as well as independent scholars from across the political spectrum put together by the American Bar Association in 200346 reached an unanimous conclusion that the increasing federal influences on criminal justice portends serious danger to government, individual liberty and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The task force report indicated that for more than a hundred years after the adoption of the Constitution the federal criminal code was limited to treason, bribery of federal officials, perjury in federal court, theft of government property and revenue fraud. However, the present body of federal criminal law is so vast that there is no complete list of federal crimes. There are an estimated 4000 criminal statutes which have been enacted by Congress, but in addition to these there are some 10,000 federal regulations which have legal sanctions for their violation. Put together, the various criminal statutes, regulations and judicial rulings governing how these statutes are enforced comprise 4 million (4,000,000) pages of text. In addition to the 4 million page criminal code there are also general laws against Interfering with Interstate Commerce and Violation of Civil Rights which are constantly being expanded to cover new activities, and each year approximately 1000 new criminal statutes are considered for adoption by Congress. It is needless to say, again, that despite attempts by politicians to appear tough on crime   the federal crime fighting effort has had no appreciable effect at reducing violent crime47. Unfortunately, while the increasing political influence on criminal justice has had to appreciable effect on crime rates, it has created a myriad of problems and potential problems for the criminal justice system. Some of these problems identified in the task force report include: Selective Prosecution. Because only .2% of violent crimes are prosecuted on the federal level, US attorneys must cherry pick specific cases on which to focus. There are no federal guidelines and no judicial review over which cases federal prosecutors decide to pursue or not. As a result the prosecution and punishment of a few individuals will differ radically from the majority of people in the same area who commit the exact same crime. A real danger exists that a federal prosecutor will discriminate against a particular group of people, and that those people will have no recourse. Additionally, federal and state sentencing guidelines reflect very different priorities, which may not well serve the cause of justice. Federal sentencing guidelines for non-violent offences tend to be harsher than for states, while state sentencing for violent crimes is often harsher than for federal. Overburdening the federal judiciary. The federal courts were not designed or intended to handle more than a handful of criminal cases. The federal courts were initially set up to rule on civil cases involving disputes between individuals or corporations in different states. The primary role of federal courts to adjudicate civil disputes has been seriously hampered as more and more of their time must be devoted to criminal matters. The result is that interstate cases requiring federal attention are delayed to accommodate criminal cases which could also be tried at the state level. Distraction and Diversion of Local Police. The blurring of responsibility for a certain conduct between federal and local police may have the ironic effect of discouraging and confusing local police efforts. Some local entities because of assumption of federal jurisdiction may hesitate in pursuing certain types of conduct. Some crimes may go uninvestigated as each level assumes that the other is taking responsibility. On the opposite side is the potential for an unhealthy competition or resentment between local and federal law enforcement. Turf wars could result between local district attorneys and US attorneys as each tries to claim jurisdiction over high profile crimes. It may even occur that one jurisdiction or the other will make an arrest before a case is sound in an effort to beat the other entity. Lack of Local Expertise. Federal law enforcement agencies lack the local expertise, knowledge of the area, contact with local informants, familiarity with local citizens, and trust of the local community which is such a help in the investigation and prevention of crime. In as much as federal law enforcement crowds out local police the federalisation of law enforcement is counter productive and weakens the criminal justice system48. More importantly, the increasing politicising of criminal justice system creates a misconception about the essence of punishment and how to administer punitive measures. It is obvious that punishment is the most complex process within the criminal justice system and the inconsistencies associated with comprehending this process may be reasons for the weakening and inefficiency of the system. According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy49, the concept of punishment its definition and its practical application and justification have during the last few decades shown a considerable drift away from efforts to reform and rehabilitate offenders towards retribution and incarceration. Von Hirsch50 placed the concept of punishment in the right perspective when he argued that punishment is more socially than individually based and he based this concept of punishment on fairness. For example, when someone infringes another’s rights, the person gains an unfair advantage over others in society. The punishment for this act imposes a counterbalance disadvantage on the offender and restores balance 51. The author then argued that if the system is unjust regarding the administration of punishment (in other words, it is undeserved, unfair, unnecessary or extreme) a â€Å"social crime† may be perceived by the offender; therefore the offender perceives society as having an unfair advantage. As a result of these actions, social retaliation could be committed by the offender, in the form of prejudice, hostility, resistance, a criminal act and other acts of deviance in order to maintain the social equilibrium. Putting the argument in this essay thus far into perspective, it becomes apparent that the weakness and inefficiency of the U.S criminal justice system is a as a result of a mix-match of factors. The multiple approaches to the mission of US criminal justice systems have led to the erosion of a common purpose, resulting in a mix of both efficient and inefficient systems. This essay has brought forth information that has clarified the argument that states have failed to plan collectively resulting in a fragmented system of justice. This departure has led to â€Å"state specific† methods of criminal justice processes that have had a widespread adverse impact on the offender, the re-integration process and thus the effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. Again, the state specific nature of the American criminal justice system makes the system more susceptible to local political influences, while the increasing federalising of criminal justice systems, on the other hand, also open the system to influences from the federal level. Taken as a whole, politics appear to play significant role in the direction and outcomes of criminal cases, and this, most evident from the Michael Jackson trial, speaks volumes about the weakness of the system. Considering the outcomes and consequences of the trial, it is obvious that the verdict of the trial was a result of a lot of influences. However, one fact that stands out from the trial appears to be that equity and equality is not really a characteristic of the system. In essence, environmental influences, fostered on the system due to the crime control model of justice, appeared to have complicated the judicial process, hindered due process, stagnated programme development and in sum, considerably hindered the effective administration of justice through the criminal justice system. Conclusion Like every other celebrity trial in history, the Michael Jackson trial offered a cocktail of fame, sex and violence, and most importantly, a test of the American criminal justice system.   Though, there have been concerns about the effectiveness of the U.S. criminal justice systems, this trial further helped to strengthen such worries. Criminal Justice refers to the system used by government to maintain social control, prevent crime, enforce laws, and administer justice. The police, prosecution, courts and corrections facilities are the major component of any criminal justice system. Unfortunately, most modern criminal justice systems take an ineffective punitive approach to crime control. This effort has failed to combat crime, and in most cases; it has further increased crime rates. In the American situation, external influences such as legal, culturally and political influences on the American criminal justice system has helped to produce a weak, fragmented and utterly ineffective criminal justice system that appears to only dance to the tune of these influences. Beside these external influences, the structure of the American criminal justice system lends itself to faults and inefficiency. The U.S. criminal justice system is designed sequentially with interrelated parts with decisions in the criminal justice system made in a specific order. This process creates an exchange relationship among the key decision makers in the criminal justice system that could impact goals, objectives and policy development and thus tend to hold a â€Å"cause and effect† relationship exists for every decision made by system members. And this fact has been clearly brought to the fore by the Michael Jackson trial. While the prosecutor indicted Jackson on a ten count charge of child molestation, the jury acquitted him of all charges under circumstances that left so much to be imagined. The consequences of the acquittal have further lent credence to the argument that the process through which Jackson was acquitted was not as just as would be expected. It has also clearly showed that the structure of the American criminal justice system is one that allows for external influences to determine the direction and/or outcomes of the system. Endnotes Olsen, Eric (2005). Michael Jackson Trial: Closing Arguments Begin. BC Magazine, posted on 2nd June. Camon , Alessandro (2005). Guilty! Online Essay available at http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/06/14/jackson_essay/index.html Smith, Leslie J (2003). The Organizational Environment and Its Influence on State Criminal Justice Systems Within The United States And The Offender Re-Integration Process. Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 16(2), Pp.97–112; Weich, Ronald and Carlos Angulo (2000). Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System. Report prepared for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund. Beck, A. and P. Paige (2001). Prisoners in 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, US Department of Justice, August. US Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics) (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, June [On-Line serial] NCJ 193427, pp. 1–16. US Department of Justice. Ibid Jackson not guilty. CNN News Report posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/index.html/; Olsen, Eric (2005). Michael Jackson Trial: Closing Arguments Begin. BC Magazine, posted on 2nd June. Jackson not guilty. Supra County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). PR Michael Jackson. Press release. Available at http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf.; Jackson not guilty. Supra, Olsen, Eric (2005). Supra Olsen, Eric (2005). Supra Camon, Alessandro (2005). Ibid County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). Ibid Jackson not guilty. Ibid County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). Ibid Olsen, Eric (2005). Ibid Jackson not guilty. Ibid Jackson not guilty. Ibid County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). Ibid Olsen, Eric (2005). Ibid The Michael Jackson File – From Superstar to Suspect, Complete Coverage of Trouble in Neverland. E! Online: available at http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/JacksonNews/index.html, Jackson Juror Sues Over Book Deal. Contact Music (2005). Available at http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/jackson%20juror%20sues%20over%20book%20deal County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). Ibid Hahn, P. H. (1998). Emerging Trends in Criminal Justice, 10–11:158–160; Cole, G. F. and C. E. Smith (1998). The American System of Criminal Justice, 8, 22–40, 143–257, 456. Smith, Leslie J (2003). Ibid Richard C. Hanes and Sharon M. Hanes (2005). Crime and Punishment in America. Volume 1. Thomas Gale. Farmington Hills, MI US Department of Justice. Ibid Smith, Leslie J (2003). Ibid Kolfas, J., S. Stojkovic, and D. Kalinich (1990). Defining the environment of the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Organizations Administration and Management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 18–30 Kolfas, et al Supra p. 20. Kolfas, et al. Ibid p. 21 Cole, G. F. and C. E. Smith (1998). The American System of Criminal Justice, 8, 22–40, 143–257, 456 Cole and Smith (1998). Supra p. 9. Cole and Smith (1998). Ibid   p. 22. Cole and Smith (1998). Ibid   p. 23. Cole and Smith (1998). Ibid   p. 22. Open Society Institute (2002) Majority of Americans Think U.S. Criminal Justice System is Broken, Ineffective; See Need for Change. Soros Foundation Network. Available at http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/news/systembroken_20020213 Smith, Leslie J (2003). Ibid Smith, M. E. (Ed.) (1996). Who wants an effective crime policy and can deliver one? In campaign for an effective crime policy. Crime and Politics in the 1990s: Three Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy. Smith, (1996). Supra Zhao, J. and Q. C. Thurman (1997). Community policing: where are we now? Crime and Delinquency, 43(3), 345–357. Zhao and Thurman. Supra p. 345 Zhao and Thurman. Supra p. 345–347 Cole and Smith (1998). Ibid; Petersilia, J. (2000). When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences, Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, November. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice; Hahn, (1998). Ibid Smith, Leslie J (2003). Ibid Smith, Leslie J (2003). Ibid, Savelsberg, Joachim J., Lara L. Cleveland, Ryan D. King (June 2004). Institutional Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993. Social Forces 82(4): p1275-1302 American Bar Association (2003). Summary of the American Bar Associations Report on the Federalization of Criminal Law. Available at http://www.localsov.com/abuses/justice/abasum.htm American Bar Association (2003). Supra American Bar Association (2003). Supra Stanford Encyclopeadia of Philosophy (2005). Punishment. Retrieved 4th April 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/ Von Hirsch, A. (1996). Doing justice: the choice of punishments. Criminal Justice, 3, 147–152. Von Hirsch (1996). Supra p. 147 Bibliography American Bar Association (2003). Summary of the American Bar Associations Report on the Federalization of Criminal Law. Available at http://www.localsov.com/abuses/justice/abasum.htm Beck, A. and P. Paige (2001). Prisoners in 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, US Department of Justice, August. Bedau, H. A., 2001, Feinbergs Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 5, pp. 103-44. Camon , Alessandro (2005). Guilty! Online Essay available at http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/06/14/jackson_essay/index.html Cole, George F., Christopher E. Smith (2005). Criminal Justice in America. Thomson. County of Santa Barbara, CA (2003). PR Michael Jackson. Press release. Available at http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf The Michael Jackson File – From Superstar to Suspect, Complete Coverage of Trouble in Neverland. E! Online: available at http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/JacksonNews/index.html Walker, Samuel (1992). Origins of the Contemporary Criminal Justice Paradigm: The American Bar Foundation Survey, 1953-1969. Justice Quarterly 9(1). Savelsberg, Joachim J., Lara L. Cleveland, Ryan D. King (June 2004). Institutional Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993. Social Forces 82(4): p1275-1302 Richard C. Hanes and Sharon M. Hanes (2005). Crime and Punishment in America. Volume 1. Thomas Gale. Farmington Hills, MI Stanford Encyclopeadia of Philosophy (2005). Punishment. Retrieved 4th April 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/ Open Society Institute (2002) Majority of Americans Think U.S. Criminal Justice System is Broken, Ineffective; See Need for Change. Soros Foundation Network. Available at http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/news/systembroken_20020213 Kraska, Peter B (ed) (2001). Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police. Northeastern University Press. Jackson not guilty. CNN News Report posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/index.html/ Olsen, Eric (2005). Michael Jackson Trial: Closing Arguments Begin. BC Magazine, posted on 2nd June. Jackson Juror Sues Over Book Deal. Contact Music (2005). Available at http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/jackson%20juror%20sues%20over%20book%20deal Nutley, Sandra and Huw T.O. Davies (1999). The Rise and Fall of Evidence in Criminal Justice. Public Money Management, January-March. Smith, Leslie J (2003). The Organizational Environment and Its Influence on State Criminal Justice Systems Within The United States And The Offender Re-Integration Process. Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 16(2), Pp.97–112. Weich, Ronald and Carlos Angulo (2000). Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System. Report prepared for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund. Cole, G. F. and C. E. Smith (1998). The American System of Criminal Justice, 8, 22–40, 143–257, 456 Hahn, P. H. (1998). Emerging Trends in Criminal Justice, 10–11:158–160. Kolfas, J., S. Stojkovic, and D. Kalinich (1990). Defining the environment of the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Organizations Administration and Management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 18–30 Petersilia, J. (2000). When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences, Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, November. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice. Smith, M. E. (Ed.) (1996). Who wants an effective crime policy and can deliver one? In campaign for an effective crime policy. Crime and Politics in the 1990s: Three Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy. US Department of Justice (National Institute of Corrections) (2002). Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, January. US Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics) (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, June [On-Line serial] NCJ 193427, pp. 1–16. Von Hirsch, A. (1996). Doing justice: the choice of punishments. Criminal Justice, 3, 147–152. Zhao, J. and Q. C. Thurman (1997). Community policing: where are we now? Crime and Delinquency, 43(3), 345–357.