Crime Control Policy Paper

Due Process found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is a cardinal proposition in the United States Constitution. Not only does it aim to restrict the power of federal and state governments, but it also provides adequate protection to all citizens. Chiefly influenced by a British Philosopher, John Locke, the Due Process Clause emphasizes the importance of “life, liberty, and property”. More specifically, any deprivation of the three freedoms can occur only through judicial and procedural safeguards (Smentkowski). First documented in the Magna Carta, the concept of legality became a constitutional guarantee that affords equal protection of the laws (Strauss). In fact, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of defendants and reinforces fairness in any legal procedure. Without Due Process, the less privileged would not have the right to legal counsel nor to remain silent during interrogation sessions. Due Process in the Fifth Amendment seeks to secure the rights of all citizens regardless of their age, background, or social status.

Effective tactics and Strategies of enforcement that focus on visible street crime or “quality of Life” crimes.

Recent surveys have indicated that crime rate in the United States is on the rise. Crime in the U.S. is classified into property crime and violent crime. These criminal activities have a considerable impact on a state’s social and economic growth and development. Different states in the U.S. have developed different strategies to combat crime, which continues to transform in form and frequency. A number of policies, options, and approaches to crime control exist. This report explores some of the policies, options, and approaches that could be used by Florida to enhance crime control.

In 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice called for a revolution in the approach to crime. As a result, the commission developed seven specific goals that are relevant in the twenty-first century: prevent crimes, adopt new ways of dealing with offenders, eliminate injustice and unfairness, upgrade personnel, conduct research to find new and effective ways to control crime, appropriate the necessary funds to accomplish the goals, and involve all elements of society in

Crime prevention is an attempt in the reduction and deterrence of criminal activities and criminal behavior. Prevention of crime is applied specifically to the efforts made by governments and the communities to reduce crime, enforce laws, and maintain justice. The first crime prevention division formed In the United States was in Berkley, California in 1925. It was the first of its kind in police history. Deterrence is a theory about preventing or controlling actions or behavior through distress of punishment or reprisal. Deterrence shapes the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries.

The studies and research of crime prevention programs in a specific area may overlook the reasoning and effects of reduced criminal activities that are reviewed. Crime Displacement and Diffusion play a vital role in crime prevention in the society as a whole. Displacement is very important when determining if a program or initiative works, regarding crime prevention as well as reduction of crimes in a particular area. Neighborhood watch and block groups and crime television shows are different forms of crime preventions within a community and outside the community. The Bureau of Justice Assistance states, “There are a variety of crime prevention programs/ strategies that use specific approaches to anticipate, recognize, appraise, and address crime and/or the factors contributing to crime. Crime prevention may be targeted at different levels including the individual, community, family, or particular types of locations.” (Office of Justice Programs, 2015)

From time to time crime analysts utilize service calls in lieu of crime incident data to research crime issues/problems (Santos 2012). Analyzing calls for law enforcement can be misleading for many different reasons. The offense type: When a law enforcement agency receives a call for service, the operator assigns the calls classification. In many instances once the law enforcement officer arrives on a scene, the officer will determine that the nature of the call is different than what was originally reported by the caller who initiated the call. The Date and Time: This is where the data is tracked in regards to when the call for assistance was received, when the call was assigned to the responding officer, when that officer arrived, and when the issue was closed by the officer on the scene. The tracking of that information does not always reflect the accuracy in when the offense actually took place.

& Scott, M., July 2009, p. 36). These fundamentals were intended to discourage crime by increasing the likelihood that the police would catch offenders, who would then be punished through criminal prosecution (Plant, J. & Scott, M., July 2009, p. 36). Unfortunately, there is creditable evidences that suggest that this model not that effective; it did not controlled crime, but increased the public’s sense of safety and security, or enhanced public confidence in the police and local government (Plant, J. & Scott, M., July 2009, p.

As one analyzes the differences between intent procedural and substantive due process, the purpose of due process must be determined. The purpose of due process is assuring that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. This is the only theory that is vital to individual rights and freedoms than due process (Snyder, 2015). However, due process is not only the opportunity to be heard, but to extend justice and fairness to the individual in relationship to government. Hence, due process protects individuals from the encroachment of the state on person right and interest (Snyder, 2012).

In the past few decades, the rate of crime and the costs to prevent it has skyrocketed. Government is spending huge amount of their money and resources on preventing, investigating and dealing with the consequences of these crimes on social and public life. According to one recent study, around 5% of the GDP goes on crime control. In spite of these measures, the crime in the last few years has increased. With crime persistently resisting so-called "disciplinary" efforts to fight it, curiosity among legal experts has progressively shifted to new methods of preventing criminality, rather than punishing it (Lunde 2004). A number of studies have indicated that crime prevention can considerably cut down on

The manner in which juveniles are punished for their crimes is very grey. If a poll were to be taken, both sides would have valid arguments. The treatment model works in some cases. Sending juveniles to rehabilitation centers in which professionals are able to sort out the problems can be helpful, as many juveniles suffer from traumatic experiences in their life and have not yet figured out how to sort out their emotions leading them to make bad decisions. However, some may view the treatment model as a "slap on the wrist". The justice model and crime control model can work off each other. In many cases, juveniles should pay for their crimes, but in a very relevant and even discretional way. The justice model keeps things very fair, yet the

In this chapter, Garland discusses the implications that the crime control policies resulting from the changing economic, social, and cultural conditions of late modernity have on the future and the ways in which these policies are responding to certain issues, such as the contrast of the emphasis for individual freedom of middle and upper classes and the regulation and control of the “undeserving poor.” The methods employed by criminal justice institutions are in response to the concern of the sovereign’s ability to protect and control and the increasing need for the public’s safety, obtained through the exclusion of dangerous populations. However, these same methods can be harmful to society as they produce greater inequality as these

Such strategy may include targeting high crime areas, increased patrols, traffic stops, profiling, undercover and sting operations, wiretapping, surveillance, and aggressive raids and searches designed to break the back of criminal activity. Proponents argue that certain individual rights must be sacrificed for the common good. The positive effects of the strategy are obvious in that criminals and criminal activity become the direct target of law enforcement (Frank Schmallegar, 1999).

Over the past 30 years, crime has become a major issue of public concern, of political discussion and action, often intemperate and not likely to reduce crime, and of major public expenditure. Despite its salience in public arena, very little is known about the factors driving the crime trend, and the knowledge base is too limited to support intelligent forecasts of the direction in which crime rates are moving, especially when changing direction. Developing such as knowledge base is important for enhancing the rationality of public policies and public expenditures related to crime, particularly because many such commitments have to be made well in advance of

"Controlling violent crime is largely a state and local responsibility," declare Robert Moffit, Edwin Meese, and Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation. "State and local officials," they say, "should take the initiative to identify and target the hard-core criminals who are committing the majority of crimes and implement tough policies to put them behind bars and keep them there. Mounting evidence shows that this approach works."