Crime Policy|Crime Prevention|Crime Reduction|
How Did We Get So Tough On Crime? -- Federal Crime Policies In 1974, the rehabilitative orientation had begun to shift, with revelations from Robert Martinson’s controversial publication titled What Works? This report offered a negative review of treatment programs, and their failure to accomplish their goals, one being reducing recidivism. And because street crime had become a major public concern, politicians launched campaigns to “get tough” on crime and to fight, at any expense, a war on drugs.
This sentiment grew further in the 1980s. A significant amount of legislation was passed during this decade alone relating to strengthening law enforcement, and toughening laws for drug users. At the same time, less concern was given for the treatment of offenders. In addition, while Gusfield argues that a large number of people have been criminalized and punished, these wars are “symbolic crusades” designed to “articulate moral values and affirm a way of life instead of implementing realistic attempts to alleviate the drug problem” (54). Blumstein observed that “politicians’ reply to pressure from crusaders to “do something” by demanding increased punishment is an approach that seems to satisfy almost everybody even if it does not directly address the problem” (3). Thus, the practice of symbolic crusades seemed to be an avenue for politicians to gain popularity among the masses. Ostensibly, the 1980s were a period of conservative crime policy in which get-tough sentencing reforms were implemented throughout the country (Belenko and Peugh 53; Johnson and Jones 985; Griffith et al. 352). One of many examples of get-tough legislation was visualized in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This Act resulted in changes in increased punitiveness in various areas of crime policies to include sentencing, forfeiture of assets associated with illegal activity, penalties for drug laws, and prosecution of certain juveniles as adults. Shortly after the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 became law. This legislation enabled federal agencies to increase focus on the reduction of supply and demand, and moreover, many drug-related activities such as growing, manufacturing, and trafficking in drugs were criminalized (George 8). Under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, new crimes were identified, making it illegal to utilize juveniles in selling drugs, to sell drugs to pregnant women, to sell drugs near educational institutions, and to launder drug money. This had the effect of widening the net of social control. The next major crime control policy, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, contained components associated with nearly every facet of the Federal effort to control drug abuse. This Act prescribed increased penalties for offenses related to drug trafficking, the creation of new federal offenses and regulatory requirements, changes in criminal procedures, sanctions designed to put added pressure on drug users, and general increases in funding for drug law enforcement (Doyle, Hogan, Klebe and Perl 1). This Act also stipulated organization and coordination of Federal drug control efforts designed to reduce the drug production abroad and international trafficking problems. For example, grant money was made available for personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and creation of multi-jurisdictional task force programs. Most of these new programs were still focused on traditional, conservative law enforcement practices. In 1990, the federal government enacted the Omnibus Crime Control Act. This legislation was designed to address violent and white-collar crime at the federal level, and to create a leadership role for the federal government with respect to crime control. Provisions included in this Act relating to the get tough stance are components such as the toughening of savings and loan fraud investigation and prosecution efforts, the enhancement of drug-free school zone programs, grants for drug enforcement efforts, rural drug law enforcement, and court improvements (Snow 1). Efforts to curb crime rates and punish offenders would undergo an additional transformation, taking punitive sentencing to another level. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized mandatory life imprisonment for persons convicted of two or more felonies, serious violent felonies, and serious drug offenses. Subsequent to passage of this act, the nation saw a multitude of new laws enacted in numerous states embracing this get tough position on repeat offenders. For instance, in life-without-parole statutes were passed in some states, Minnesota sentencing guidelines incorporated a grid for determining punishment of offenders based in part on prior criminal records, and California’s Governor Pete Wilson approved Assembly Bill 971 which contained three strikes legislation ( Benekos and Merlo 4; Shichor 478). These three strikes laws place considerable limitations on discretion of judges and prosecutors, who before were less limited by indeterminate sentencing laws. With respect to this new legislation, California was the first state to implement a mandatory three-strikes law (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio 459). In March 1994, Assembly Bill 971 was passed, and its most notable provision was a requirement that judges impose “an indeterminate sentence of a minimum of 25 years to life, or triple the normal sentence, whichever is greater, on offenders convicted of certain serious or violent felonies if they have two previous convictions for any felony (Benekos and Merlo 4). Also, Bill 971 requires consecutive prison sentences for multiple-count convictions, and limits good time credits to 20% after the first strike (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio 459). Slogans such as “do the crime, do the time” became popular, and under some of these new mandatory sentences offenders were serving 85 % of their sentences (Tonry 2). The trend continued with other states enacting similar statutes. Taken together, various legislation enacted over the past 30 years has become increasingly punitive, as society and politicians have demanded harsher sentences for offenders. In the numerous bills, little attention was given to rehabilitative efforts such as funding and implementation of treatment programs. Belenko, Steven and Jordon Peugh. “Fighting crime by treating substance abuse.” Issues in Science & Technology 15:1 (1998): 53-60.
Benekos, Peter J. and Alida V. Merlo. “Three strikes and you’re out!: The political sentencing game.” Federal Probation 59:1 (1995): 3-9.
Blumstein, A. 1993. "Making rationality relevant: The American Society of Criminology 1992 Presidential Address." Criminology 31:1-16.
Doyle, C., Hogan, H., Klebe, E., and Perl, R. 1988. Anti-Drug abuse act of 1988 (H.R. 5210, 100th Congress): Highlights of enacted bill. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
George, B. James, Jr. 988. Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (From Contemporary federal criminal practice: Volume 2 of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984,Appendix A, p 765-784. 199, 1988.
Griffith, J.D., Hiller, M.L., Knight, K., and Simpson, D.D. 1999. "A cost-effective analysis of in-prison therapeutic community treatment and risk classification." Prison Journal 79(3): 352-368.
Gusfield, Joseph. 1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Schicor, David. 1997. "Three strikes as public policy: the convergence of the new penology and the McDonaldization of punishment." Crime & Delinquency 43(4):470-492.
Snow, D.M. 1991. One hundred and first congress in review: The omnibus crime control act of 1990, P.L. (public law) Number 101-647. State-Federal Issue Brief, 4(2): 1-10.
Stolzenberg, Lisa and D’Alessio, S.J. 1997. “Three strikes and you’re out”: The impact of California’s new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates. Crime & Delinquency 43(4):457-469.
Tonry, Michael. 1999. "Reconsidering indeterminate and structured sentencing." National Institute of Justice.
 http://www.talkleft.com/tlbanner.jpg http://www.talkleft.com/policy.html The Politics of Crime: Policy Links http://www.ncjrs.org/works/wholedoc.htm Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising http://www.urban.org/images/nav/banner.gif http://www.urban.org/crime/crime.htm Crime Policy Report: Did Getting Tough on Crime Pay? http://www.famm.org/images/famm5_main_r1_c1.jpg http://www.famm.org Official Website of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) Which of the following legislation provided authorization for three strikes laws? Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1990 Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994 D _______________ ______________ refer to wars designed to articulate moral values and affirm a way of life instead of implementing realistic attempts to alleviate the drug problem. Moral Wars Symbolic Crusades Fruitless Crusades Narcotics Wars B In your opinion has the "Get Tough" stance on crime been successful? Why or why not? Answers may vary since this is an opinion question.