Evolution of Sentencing and Charges Decisions in Criminal Justice

¶ … federal practitioners' goals have evolved somewhat, particularly subsequent to high-profile cases like those of Al Capone and Whitey Bulger. At the same time, a punitive mentality has prevailed in terms of charging decisions and sentencing punishments. Some sentencing decisions are largely symbolic, like those affecting Whitey Bulger. Bulger was ordered to pay more than $19 million to victim families and another $25.2 million to the government, even though the Bulger estate has nothing near that amount in it. Interestingly, Bulger not only helped to corrupt government officials by luring them with the promise of large amounts of cash, but he also participated later with the FBI as an informant (Valencia, Murphy & Finucane, 2013). The government continues to rely on people like Bulger, who can provide valuable information related to other crimes and other criminals. Therefore, in terms of decisions made during investigations, state and federal law enforcement officials have changed little in their approach.

Charging decisions and punishment has also changed little, with a surge in attention placed on "three strikes" and other strident rules occurring during the 1980s. Unrelated to high profile cases like those of Capone and Bulger, strict sentencing guidelines reflected a mentality that criminals cannot be rehabilitated. Mandatory minimum sentences had become popular, too, even though "generally incompatible with the operation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines," (Mulhausen, 2010). The examples of Capone and Bulger show how media attention can impact public opinion and lead to changes in legislation. Movies have been made about both Capone and Bulger, too, showing that the American public remains in awe of and almost admiring of criminals.