The Wars on Crime and The Wars on Crime and Drugs: Origins and Drugs: Origins and

ImplicationsImplications

Where did the most recent wars Where did the most recent wars on crime and drugs come from, on crime and drugs come from,

and what have been their primary and what have been their primary effects?effects?

The Wars on Crime and The Wars on Crime and DrugsDrugs

Waging ‘war’ on crime and drugs is not new…Waging ‘war’ on crime and drugs is not new… But the consequences of today’s ‘wars’ are But the consequences of today’s ‘wars’ are

unprecedented.unprecedented.

Today’s questions:Today’s questions: Why did these campaigns emerge in recent Why did these campaigns emerge in recent

decades?decades?

Why have they had such a significant impact on the Why have they had such a significant impact on the

number of people moving through the criminal number of people moving through the criminal justice system? What are the consequences of this?justice system? What are the consequences of this?

Main components of the Main components of the criminal justice systemcriminal justice system

Police/law enforcement—federal, Police/law enforcement—federal, state & localstate & local Many jurisdictional issuesMany jurisdictional issues

Courts—Courts— Main actors?Main actors?

‘‘Correctional” institutionsCorrectional” institutions

Origins of the War on Crime: Origins of the War on Crime: The Reaction to the Civil The Reaction to the Civil

Rights MovementRights Movement OpponentsOpponents equated equated civil disobediencecivil disobedience

with street crime.with street crime. Argued that “law and order” was breaking Argued that “law and order” was breaking

down as a result of political protest.down as a result of political protest.

But images suggested that violence But images suggested that violence was the result of state response to was the result of state response to protest.protest.

Police Maintain Racial Police Maintain Racial Segregation at a South Segregation at a South Carolina Beach, 1964.Carolina Beach, 1964.

Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, Hattiesburg, MS, 1964.Hattiesburg, MS, 1964.

Arrest of a Civil Rights Arrest of a Civil Rights Protestor in Nashville, 1964Protestor in Nashville, 1964

Police Respond to a Civil Police Respond to a Civil Rights ProtestRights Protest

Civil Rights March, 1965Civil Rights March, 1965

The 1960s: Growing Concern The 1960s: Growing Concern about ‘Lawlessness’about ‘Lawlessness’

Widespread support for civil rights Widespread support for civil rights outside of the south continued.outside of the south continued. No increase in public concern about crime No increase in public concern about crime

prior to 1964.prior to 1964.

1965--: Black Power movement, student 1965--: Black Power movement, student movement, and urban riots create a movement, and urban riots create a different image.different image. Public becomes more receptive to Public becomes more receptive to

conservative rhetoric regarding “lawlessness.”conservative rhetoric regarding “lawlessness.”

Black Panther Party Members, Black Panther Party Members, 19651965

Black Panther Party Leaders, 1968Black Panther Party Leaders, 1968

Watts Riot, 1965Watts Riot, 1965

Chicago, August 1968.Chicago, August 1968.

The whole world was watching.

19681968

Assassination of MLK triggers riots Assassination of MLK triggers riots around the country.around the country.

Detroit Riots, 1968Detroit Riots, 1968

Framing the Events of the Framing the Events of the 1960s1960s

Political protest was defined as crime, evidence Political protest was defined as crime, evidence of the breakdown of ‘law and order.’of the breakdown of ‘law and order.’ Protest did take less orderly forms after 1965.Protest did take less orderly forms after 1965. Protest and crime merged in people’s minds.Protest and crime merged in people’s minds.

Conservatives blamed courts (i.e. lenient judges) Conservatives blamed courts (i.e. lenient judges) and welfare programs for ‘breakdown of law and and welfare programs for ‘breakdown of law and order.’order.’ Sociological theories of crime were discredited.Sociological theories of crime were discredited.

Public opinion became more receptive to Public opinion became more receptive to conservative rhetoric on crimeconservative rhetoric on crime But was still quite divided and But was still quite divided and Strong support for rehabilitation continued.Strong support for rehabilitation continued.

1960s and 1970s:1960s and 1970s:The Liberal Critique of The Liberal Critique of

RehabilitationRehabilitation

Liberals and progressives expressed Liberals and progressives expressed concerned about discretion inherent concerned about discretion inherent in in-determinant sentencing laws.in in-determinant sentencing laws.

Also began to argue that Also began to argue that rehabilitation efforts failed and only rehabilitation efforts failed and only enhanced state power.enhanced state power.

Crime and PoliticsCrime and Politics

President Nixon (1968) intensified rhetoric President Nixon (1968) intensified rhetoric of the war on crime.of the war on crime.

But found that crime control largely a local But found that crime control largely a local responsibility.responsibility.

Subsequently shifted attention to drugs.Subsequently shifted attention to drugs.

War on drugs officially declared in 1970. War on drugs officially declared in 1970. Essentially ignored after Watergate (until 1980s).Essentially ignored after Watergate (until 1980s).

Reagan’s War on Crime and Reagan’s War on Crime and Drugs, 1980-88Drugs, 1980-88

Like Nixon, declared war on crime in election Like Nixon, declared war on crime in election campaign; shifted attention to drugs.campaign; shifted attention to drugs.

Continued tradition of blaming crime and drug Continued tradition of blaming crime and drug abuse on lenient judges and welfare programs.abuse on lenient judges and welfare programs.

Advocated legislation that reflected the view Advocated legislation that reflected the view that intensified law enforcement and enhanced that intensified law enforcement and enhanced punishments would reduce crime. punishments would reduce crime.

1980s Legislation1980s Legislation Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984

Established the United States Sentencing Commission Established the United States Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing policies and practices "by to establish sentencing policies and practices "by promulgating detailed guidelines prescribing promulgating detailed guidelines prescribing appropriate sentences for offenders convicted of federal appropriate sentences for offenders convicted of federal crimes.“crimes.“

Represents beginning of shift toward Represents beginning of shift toward Determinant sentencing lawsDeterminant sentencing laws Longer sentencesLonger sentences Increasing federal control influence over sentencing Increasing federal control influence over sentencing

policy.policy.

1980s Legislation Continued:1980s Legislation Continued:Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 & Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 &

19881988 Enhanced anti-drug funds by several billion.Enhanced anti-drug funds by several billion.

Largely spent on border control efforts and domestic Largely spent on border control efforts and domestic policing. policing.

Allowed use of illegally obtained evidence in Allowed use of illegally obtained evidence in some drug trials.some drug trials.

Restricted judicial discretion in sentencing of Restricted judicial discretion in sentencing of drug defendants:drug defendants: Sentence determined by type & weight of drugSentence determined by type & weight of drug Imposed mandatory minimum sentencesImposed mandatory minimum sentences Crack vs. powder cocaine discrepancy added in 1988.Crack vs. powder cocaine discrepancy added in 1988.

1994 Violent Crime Control & 1994 Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement ActLaw Enforcement Act

Also enjoyed bipartisan support.Also enjoyed bipartisan support.

Key features:Key features: ““Truth-in-Sentencing” provisions—no parole at Truth-in-Sentencing” provisions—no parole at

federal levelfederal level

More mandatory minimum sentencing lawsMore mandatory minimum sentencing laws

Restrictions on right to appeal conviction & death Restrictions on right to appeal conviction & death sentence.sentence.

$13.8 billion for local law enforcement.$13.8 billion for local law enforcement.

Review: Crime Policy in the Review: Crime Policy in the 1980s and 1990s1980s and 1990s

Bipartisan support for getting “tough Bipartisan support for getting “tough on crime.”on crime.”

Shift toward tough and determinant Shift toward tough and determinant sentencing laws at federal level.sentencing laws at federal level. Many states and localities follow suit.Many states and localities follow suit.

Increased funding for law Increased funding for law enforcement efforts, especially drug enforcement efforts, especially drug law enforcement.law enforcement.

U.S. Incarceration RateU.S. Incarceration Rate

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Nu

mb

er o

f ad

ult

s in

carc

erat

ed p

er 1

00,0

00 r

esid

ents

U.S. Incarceration Rates in U.S. Incarceration Rates in International ContextInternational Context

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Japan Netherlands

Italy France

GermanySpain

AustraliaCanada

United KingdomRussia

United States

Drug Arrest Rate by RaceDrug Arrest Rate by Race

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

White

Black

Understanding the Shift in Understanding the Shift in U.S. Crime and Drug PolicyU.S. Crime and Drug Policy

A shift from the due process model & toward the A shift from the due process model & toward the crime control model.crime control model. Examples?Examples?

A shift away from sociological theories of crime A shift away from sociological theories of crime and toward individualistic approaches.and toward individualistic approaches. Examples?Examples?

A increase in federal influence over crime policy.A increase in federal influence over crime policy.

A shift toward the view that more enforcement A shift toward the view that more enforcement and harsher punishments will solve the crime and harsher punishments will solve the crime problem.problem. Conviction rates increasedConviction rates increased Jail and prison sentences more commonJail and prison sentences more common Average sentence length increasedAverage sentence length increased

Consequences of the Shift For Consequences of the Shift For Criminal Justice InstitutionsCriminal Justice Institutions

PolicePolice Resources grow, particularly for drug policingResources grow, particularly for drug policing Spread of paramilitary unitsSpread of paramilitary units

CourtsCourts Caseloads increase dramaticallyCaseloads increase dramatically Drug cases increase the mostDrug cases increase the most

CorrectionsCorrections Huge increase in the number of prison and jail Huge increase in the number of prison and jail

facilities, many in rural areasfacilities, many in rural areas Massive overcrowdingMassive overcrowding Probation and parole populations also surgeProbation and parole populations also surge