Striking Out Analysis

There are some limitations to the use of UCR data is the fact that crimes that aren’t reported to the police are not taken into consideration. This is commonly known as the “dark figure of crime”. Another limitation that the data contains is the hierarchy rule which takes place when an incident that contains multiple offenses labels the most serious crime and is tallied only once. For example, if a crime involving motor vehicle theft and murder were committed in one incident then only motor vehicle theft would be reported. Regardless, three strikes laws should be shown affecting the rates of crimes that are reported. The UCR has been in place for over 70 years allowing us to extend previous research dating from 1980 to 2010. Drawing data from the interrupted time series design can be done by considering the average rates of crime before and after the implementation of three strikes laws and comparing them. Benefits of using this method allows certain variables within the state to affect both of the groups being compared. Maturation could be a potential variable that would affect the outcome of the results. Creating a previous trend of crime from the pretest group allows us to control

Chicago is a major city with a huge amount of crime and this paper will address crime reduction and prevention in this particular city. It will also address other issues such as; assisting victims, preventing crime, and achieving effective justice. This paper will address the effect that criminological theories and research have had on contemporary and historical crime control policies in Chicago. It will include theoretical rationale for the recommendations that are suggested. Chicago needs more help in these areas because of the amount of crime they are seeing.

One of the most popular “get tough on crime” laws is the “three strikes” law. California adopted this law in 1994 and dramatically reduced the crime rate making it very effective (Lungren, 1996). The law basically states if convicted of a third felony, or violent crime, a person would face a life sentence (Lungren, 1996). The author points out an obvious fact to this “tough on crime” law, which is ignored by critics; “A criminal in prison cannot commit crimes against the general public (Lungren, 1996, para. 18). This law was also effective in two other aspects. California showed people with felony convictions leaving the state, and felons from other states no longer relocating into California (Lungren, 1996).

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

Since the policy was enacted in the early 1990s, three strikes laws have been one of the most controversial issues facing the American criminal justice system. In general, advocates believe that locking up criminals will protect society. Critics believe that three-strike policy can only be effective with offenders that are on their last strikes (Worrall, 2008). However, other critics explain how three-strike laws don’t significantly reduce crime because most criminals mature out of the criminal lifestyle (Worrall, 2004).

In the early 1990s, in an effort to decrease crime states decided that mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders would be a good idea. As a result, several states created statutes that would require these sentences to be implemented when an offender committed a third offense; which has come to be known as “three strikes laws.” On the surface, this law seemed like good public policy; however, critics believe the sentences are not only disproportionate to the crimes that would send a criminal to jail for 25 years to life, but it would also cause the costs to house these criminals to skyrocket.(Shoener, 2015)

In 1996, males under the age of twenty-five accounted for forty-five percent of the individuals arrested for index crimes (Schafer, 1999). This raises questions for skeptics of three strikes laws. Why incarcerate offenders for life when their criminal tendencies statistically drop after a certain age? These opponents assert that three strikes laws subject offenders to over-incarceration.

The research design proposed by the authors is to statistically compare the relation between the dependent variable “violent crime” and four explanatory variables: a measure of “broken windows” policing (misdemeanor offenses), a measure of demographics (young male enrolled in high school), a measure of drug use (hospital discharges for cocaine-related episodes) and a measure of economy (unemployment). They use data of seventy-six precincts of New York City from 1989 to 1998, obtained from a variety of official secondary sources.

The Crime Control Model is one of two models that Herbert L. Parker proposed in order to control crime and criminals in the United States. For this model, his objective was that “crime must be controlled at all costs in order to have a safe society.’’ (Aberle, 30) Speed and efficiency are two significant factors that impact the judicial process with regard to how our criminal justice operates. The criminal justice system is a very complicated structure with various consequences regardless of which model an individual favors. Nonetheless, I believe that a crime control model would be more efficient in maintaining stability because it would outline a set of harsh punishments for criminals, discourage criminal activity, and preserve the safety

Johnsons (2012) paper is very similar in design to this study in that it attempts to estimate the effect of changes in incarceration rates on changes in crime rates using state provided data [1]. Johnson investigates how responsive a change in the incarceration rate is correlated with a change in the general crime rate. He models the response as either elastic or inelastic. In this context if an increase in incarceration leads to a similar or larger reduction in crime rate than the defined “crime-prison elasticities” is large. If the change in crime rate is unresponsive to a change in incarceration rate, then this value is small. Johnson found that over time the marginal impact of incarcerating one additional prisoner has declined over the past several decades. He states that incarcerating a prisoner in the 1980s led to a larger reduction in the crime rate than incarcerating a prisoner in 2004. Thus, the marginal benefit of society maintaining such a high incarceration rate has decreased over

Consequently, elaboration on apprehension and incarceration (federal and state) related to crime control policies was the cause of a significant rise in both prison population and costs on crime prevention for three decades that began in the eighties (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2000). The crime control model that demonstrates corrections policies includes tough-on-crime policies, mandatory sentences, three-strike laws, and truth in sentencing (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2000).

As already covered in the literature review, studies on the relationship between incarceration policy and crime reduction is yet to be clear for utilization by policymakers. In most cases, researchers agree that increased incarceration may perhaps have a positive effect on the reduction of crime rates. However, it is the scale of this action that has a limiting scope attached to it when empirical studies are carried. For instance, Stemen (2007) observes that a 10 percent increase in incarceration may lead to about 2 to 4 percent reduction in crime.

In 1994, the state of California followed the lead of Washington and signed a law that Californians know of as the three strikes law. With all the campaigning and publicity surrounding the law it was overwhelmingly welcomed into the legal system. The purpose of the law was to elongate the sentence of time spent in prison for repeat offenders, mainly focusing in violent or major crimes. As a result, the correction’s system has felt the effects of the law literally on prisons. Overcrowding prisons is a major problem in California and the state has a limited amount of time to correct the population reach in the California prisons.

To begin with, statistics can be defined as the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample. Criminal justice on the other hand is defined as the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts. The use of statistics has been around for decades in a number of scholarly disciplines. More specifically, it has been an important vehicle in obtaining better knowledge in the field of criminal justice. This paper will discuss the role of statistics in criminal justice.

Crime measurement and statistics for police departments are very important when it comes to money allotment, staffing needs or termination and it is also used to determine the effectiveness of new laws and programs. There are three tools used to measure major crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Incident Based Reporting System- which is currently being tested to replace the Uniform Crime Reports. Although there different tools used to measure crime, crime rates can be deceiving. Each different tool reports a different type of rate, crime rates, arrest