Research's role in criminal justice policy and prison overcrowding solutions

5

How should research be used in criminal justice decisions and criminal justice policy development? Research remains an integral part of the criminal justice department. It helps create sound policy and informed decisions. Without research those in charge of making decisions within the criminal justice department could have difficulty coming to appropriate solutions for the various problems plaguing the public regarding crime and safety. Additionally, policy development is useless without information that comes from research findings. It would be like playing baseball while blind. The information derived from research serves as the means of connecting relevant, past and current data for existing and future issues. For example, research points to the need for rehabilitative efforts versus punitive efforts regarding state correctional departments. “Shifts in public opinion and public policy in the early 21st century point to a changing criminal justice environment, which is decreasing the use of incarceration and increasing the role of rehabilitation and reintegration in the development of justice solutions” (Graves, 2014, p. 488). If policy is not generated from careful and thoughtful research, existing and future policy could lead to the continued problems facing the American criminal justice department. One such issue is overcrowding. Overcrowding has been a longstanding issue for the last two decades (Goodstein, Lynne, & Mackenzie, 2013). Although people within the American criminal justice system have seen the increase in overcrowding and the need to change policies to reduce such conditions, there have not been enough changes implemented in recent years to solve the problem. Some research offers potential solutions. · First, three-strikes, mandatory minimum sentence, and comparable laws should be repealed.

· Second, any three-strikes, mandatory minimum sentence, and comparable laws that are not repealed should be substantially narrowed in scope and severity. · Third, any three-strikes, mandatory minimum sentence, and comparable laws that are not repealed should be amended to include provisions authorizing judges to impose some other sentence “in the interest of justice.” · Fourth, life-without-possibility-of-parole laws should be repealed or substantially narrowed. Fifth, truth-in-sentencing laws should be repealed. (Tonry, 2014, p. 503). These solutions come from work derived off national crime statistics, the results of overcrowding, and the various work of other researchers desiring to provide the full picture of the overcrowding situation in American prisons. Without this information collected through research, those in charge of developing policy and making decisions within the American criminal justice system may have no guidance on what to do to improve the system and reduce not only overcrowding, but the negative outcomes associated with longer prison sentences, and harsher overall court judgements. It is because of research that there is a desire now, to provide convicted criminals with rehabilitative measures and reduced sentencing to not only help the criminal, but also reduce the overcrowding. Overcrowding in prisons is costly and can lead to increase re-offending (Goodstein, Lynne, & Mackenzie, 2013). Although research indicates crime overall has decreased, it still remains a problem especially for those with criminal records and no means to support themselves (Goodstein, Lynne, & Mackenzie, 2013). Here is where low-level crimes increase due to limited access to resources brought on by jail sentences. For example, many prisoners receive sentences due to marijuana possession (Goodstein, Lynne, & Mackenzie, 2013). Although marijuana has increasingly become legal throughout the United States, it still serves as a means of imprisoning offenders due to the localized legality of the substance in various states in the country. Research should be used a guiding point towards better policy development and decision-making. Keeping in mind the kind of research out there, taking a variety of researchers’ findings and generating a balanced policy or informed decision can lead to improvement in practices in all areas of the American criminal justice system. Since researchers have shown the negative effects of overcrowding and the cause of such overcrowding (harsh sentences), recent policy changes have reflected the need to address this core and longstanding issue. This is just one step of many that can lead to an improved American criminal justice system that protects the public and rehabilitates offenders. Ultimately research is an integral part of the American criminal justice system. It needs to be used in the form of evidence-based practice through policy development and decision-making. Without this kind of effort, problems like overcrowding will continue and could spell trouble for the American public as overcrowding and harsh prison sentences may lead to increased rates of recidivism. Although research is important, is should not be the sole basis for policy development and decision-making. Explain a gap in understanding the findings in academic, peer-reviewed criminal justice research and practitioner policy development. What can be done to close this gap? Research is an important aspect to policy development in the American criminal justice system. However, because of problems concerning budget and feasibility, many research findings are not used to guide policy development. Closing the gap involves taking into consideration the cost of implementing policy changes based on research findings. Furthermore, budget problems have led to the lack of manpower to analyze and convey the information gathered by researchers. This is a consistent problem in the American criminal justice system and needs to be taken into account when understanding and explaining the apparent gap in practitioner policy development and criminal justice research. The budget of the American Federal government, the state and local governments have dwindled. These negative changes have led to decisions that may explain the gap in research and policy development. As one researcher noted, the need for cost-benefit analysis is crucial in policy development. Without this step, research findings may be deemed too expensive to implement. Policy makers should consider careful cost–benefit analysis as an important criterion in criminal justice policy. Given some features of criminal justice policy choices such as the unequal distribution of the costs of criminal victimization, anti-crime enforcement, and the potential for perceived illegitimacy of the criminal justice system to undermine various public institutions (Domínguez & Raphael, 2015, p. 589). This is the main problem with policy development and using criminal justice research findings to guide formation of new policies. When budget it not included in the ideas or solutions being brought from research, it cannot be implemented due to perceived limited practicality. Practical ideas with defined budgets can be implemented much more easily then lofty ideas with expensive or ill-defined budgets. “As budget restrictions continue to place constraints on all levels of government, it has become increasingly important to identify efficient and effective methods of intervention” (Gallagher et al., 2015, p. 28). For example, if research findings suggest data analysts are needed within the criminal justice system to help with high-level crimes like human trafficking, a budget needs to be implemented that would offset the costs of having a data analyst and show not only that a data analyst is fiscally feasible, but is the cheaper option. When this kind of thinking is implemented, policies will be more in line with these findings than if researchers saw data analysts as the more expensive option. It is not just important to see the benefit of having data analysts for human trafficking. It is also important to understand the costs and how it can be the cheapest option in relation to the regular policy actions in place. This is the main reason why the criminal justice system in the United States has seen minimal changes in the last two decades related to effective policy development even amidst numerous articles and research dedicated to providing solutions. Another example, rehabilitation versus punitive measures show rehabilitation reduces recidivism. However, when there is little money in the budget for rehabilitation, such research findings are null. In conclusion, the American criminal justice system requires many changes. In order for these changes to take place, researchers need to keep in mind the current economic climate of the country. The United States is experiencing financial instability and an ongoing recession that has crippled the ability of the government to fund new policy changes. For policy changes to take place, they must keep in mind the need to budget and provide policy changes as the cheaper option. This is how the gap between criminal justice research and policy development can be closed. While it may take great effort to implement successful changes brought on by research findings, criminal justice research can play a key role in how people within the American criminal justice system protect and serve the public. The ongoing issue of overcrowding has seen the American prison system shift in policy development because of the increased expenses of more prisoners. This will hopefully be a positive example of what can be done to implement positive changes with the use of research. References Domínguez, P., & Raphael, S. (2015). The Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature in Bridging the Gap Between Social Science Research and Policy Making. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(4), 589-632. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12148 Domínguez, P., & Raphael, S. (2015). The Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature in Bridging the Gap Between Social Science Research and Policy Making. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(4), 589-632. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12148 Gallagher, J. R., Nordberg, A., Deranek, M. S., Ivory, E., Carlton, J., & Miller, J. W. (2015). Predicting Termination from Drug Court and Comparing Recidivism Patterns: Treating Substance Use Disorders in Criminal Justice Settings. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 33(1), 28-43. doi:10.1080/07347324.2015.982451 Goodstein, Lynne, & Mackenzie, D. (2013). The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy. Springer Verlag. Graves, S. M. (2014). Correctional Mission Statements as Indicators of the Criminal Justice Policy Environment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(5), 488-499. doi:10.1177/0887403414524052 Tonry, M. (2014). Remodeling American Sentencing: A Ten-Step Blueprint for Moving Past Mass Incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(4), 503-533. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12097