Our documentary for the week focuses heavily on the problems associated with a punitive law enforcement strategy for minors convicted of heinous crimes. While the cases presented in the documentary When Kids Get Life are extreme and shouldn't be taken as characteristic of the experience of all convicted criminals, they illustrate the problems with a one-size fits all criminal justice policy.
As Peters mentions, most law enforcement activities tend to be carried out at the state and local level. Policies like the death penalty, automatic sentencing, diversion programs, and gun control are, for the most part, decided at lower levels of government. One exception to this rule is when a state or local government's practices are ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Relatedly, the federal government intervenes in law enforcement where it is constitutionally allowed. The power to tax, interstate commerce, and activities related to the protection of federal officials have been used to justify the activities of the FBI, ATF, DEA, Customs, Secret Service, and Border Patrol.
Two areas of criminal justice policy that have been hot-topics in the news lately are gun control and the death penalty. Last year, if you remember, the Arizona legislature passed a law allowing individuals over age 21 the right to carry a weapon on campus, but the bill was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. It seems certain that a similar bill will be re-introduced in the near-future. While the question of gun control has largely been left up to states and localities to decide, the second amendment limits the degree to which gun ownership can be restricted. The correct interpretation of the second amendment has been disputed throughout the history of our nation. Scholars are divided over whether or not the second amendment provides for a collective right for the states' to organize militias or an individual right to gun ownership. In the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court broke with precedent on this issue and decided 5-4 that the second amendment provides for an individual right to gun ownership, striking down the DC handgun ban. Although most Americans tend to be fairly centrist on this issue and support some gun control, gun rights have served as a hot-button political topic or a so-called "wedge issue". Advocates on both sides tend to have had very personal and emotional experiences with guns and so our policies on this issue tend to be more extreme than public polling would suggest. What do you think about gun control? Should we have more restrictions on gun procurement and carrying in Arizona or fewer? Do you think concealed-carry on campus is a good idea? What concerns might you have with such a policy?
Another major hot-topic at the moment is the debate over the death penalty. The Troy Davis case has appeared to mobilize a substantial number of death penalty opponents and has called into question the equity of our judicial system. While Americans remain supportive of the use of the death penalty, in general, new understandings about the reliability of eye-witness testimony, police coercion, and circumstantial evidence has provoked questions about the use of the death penalty when evidence seems uncertain. Despite the fact that one of the leading GOP Presidential candidates seems to be unconcerned that evidence overwhelmingly suggests that an innocent man was put to death while he was governor, many Americans find the death of even one innocent person at the hands of the criminal justice system to be an unacceptable outcome. What do you think of the death penalty? Should we put a moratorium on its use until we are able to improve the equity of our judicial system? Should we abolish it all together? Are the Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham cases isolated unfortunate instances or symptoms of a racist and/or classist criminal justice system?
No comments:
Post a Comment