Capstone Paper Grading Rubric - 100 Points Failing

Name Titlecapstone Paper Grading Rubric 100 Pointsfailing

Students will select a specific problem or policy discussed in the Alexander book and discuss the ramifications of the problem/policy within the criminal justice system. The paper should take the form of a problem/policy analysis and should indicate whether the problem is theoretical or practical (applied). Furthermore, students should include, at minimum, answers to the problem including, but not limited to, who, what, when, where, why, and how the problem originated within the criminal justice system as well as how it continues to be a problem.

Students are expected to read and review historical and current research on their specific problem; this includes prior studies on the problem selected. Criminological theory should be reviewed to understand how the problem/policy is rooted in a particular theory. Review of case law should be conducted to determine the judicial review of the problem/policy, offering background on relevant cases and opinions. If no direct case law exists, research similar precedents.

Students must clearly articulate their position on the problem/policy and propose a plan of action. They should also consider alternative positions and critique them based on research and critical thinking. Using reflection skills, students will explain how the problem/policy and their positions impact police, courts, and corrections. The final section should synthesize the problem, theoretical background, literature review, and positions taken.

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice system is a complex and multifaceted institution that addresses a wide array of problems and policies influencing societal order and individual behavior. Selecting a specific problem or policy discussed in Alexander's work provides an opportunity to analyze its implications within criminal justice, exploring its origins, current status, theoretical foundations, legal considerations, and potential solutions.

Introduction

The problem of mass incarceration in the United States exemplifies a significant policy issue that warrants detailed analysis. This policy, rooted in historical, social, and political contexts, has profound implications for the criminal justice system, affecting policing, courts, and correctional facilities. Understanding how this problem originated, why it persists, and how it can be addressed requires an interdisciplinary approach integrating research, theory, case law, and critical reflection.

Problem and Its Background

Mass incarceration escalated during the late 20th century, influenced by policies such as the War on Drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws. These measures aimed to combat crime but resulted in disproportionate impacts on minority communities and increased prison populations (Alexander, 2010). The problem's origins lie in political decisions emphasizing punitive measures over rehabilitative approaches, reflecting societal fears and policymaker priorities. The current status reveals a systemic issue where nearly 2.3 million individuals are incarcerated, with recidivism rates remaining high (Zeng, 2018).

This issue continues to generate debate regarding its efficacy and social costs, especially concerning racial disparities, economic burdens, and civil rights violations (Clear, 2018). The persistence of mass incarceration highlights the need for reform grounded in critical policy analysis and evidence-based strategies.

Theoretical Framework

Structuration theory and labeling theory provide valuable insights into understanding mass incarceration. Labeling theory suggests that individuals who are labeled as offenders may internalize these labels, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates criminal behavior (Becker, 1963). This theory explains how punitive policies can reinforce deviant identities, resulting in cycles of incarceration.

Additionally, social disorganization theory emphasizes the role of community and environmental factors contributing to crime and, consequently, to policy responses like incarceration (Shaw & McKay, 1942). These theoretical perspectives highlight the importance of addressing societal structures and perceptions to mitigate the problem.

Legal and Judicial Aspects

Case law reviews, such as the Supreme Court decision in "Miller v. Alabama" (2012), underscore the evolving judicial stance against overly harsh sentencing for juvenile offenders. The Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for juveniles constituted cruel and unusual punishment, indicating a judiciary tendency to scrutinize mandatory sentencing policies and emphasize rehabilitation (Miller, 2012). Such cases reflect a legal trend toward balancing public safety with individual rights.

Further, the sentencing reforms initiated by legislation like the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 aim to address disparities in drug-related offenses, impacting incarceration rates and highlighting the legal system’s role in policy reform (Berman et al., 2014).

Position and Policy Recommendations

My position advocates for a comprehensive reform of the mass incarceration policy, emphasizing alternatives such as restorative justice, community-based programs, and sentencing reforms. Evidence suggests that these approaches can reduce recidivism, address underlying social issues, and promote societal reintegration (Clear, 2018; Mitchell et al., 2019).

Specifically, I recommend phasing out mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenses and increasing investment in rehabilitation and mental health services. Implementation should involve collaboration among policymakers, community organizations, and the justice system, with clear benchmarks for evaluating success, such as reduced incarceration rates and improved recidivism outcomes.

Alternative Perspectives

Some stakeholders argue that strict incarceration policies are necessary for public safety and deterrence. Critics of reform emphasize the risk of increased crime if offenders are released prematurely. However, research indicates that measured reforms do not compromise safety and can foster a more equitable justice system (The Sentencing Project, 2020).

Another view focuses on the economic costs of mass incarceration, suggesting that reallocating funds toward community development and social services can produce better long-term outcomes (Prison Policy Initiative, 2018). These perspectives highlight the importance of balancing security concerns with social justice objectives.

Critical Reflection

Reform efforts to address mass incarceration impact all branches of criminal justice. For police, reduced reliance on incarceration can lead to more community-oriented policing, fostering trust and cooperation. In courts, sentencing reform emphasizes individualized justice and procedural fairness. Corrections benefit through decreased overpopulation and increased focus on rehabilitation. These structural changes promote a more humane, equitable, and effective justice system, aligning policy with societal values and human rights.

Critical thinking reveals that addressing such a deeply rooted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach—combining legal reform, social policy, and community engagement—rather than reliance solely on punitive measures. Reflecting on these insights underscores the importance of evidence-based policies and continuous evaluation to adapt to evolving societal needs.

Conclusion

The problem of mass incarceration is a multifaceted issue rooted in historical policy choices, reinforced by social and legal theories. Its persistence calls for reform informed by criminological theory, legal precedents, and empirical research. The proposed policy shift toward alternatives like rehabilitation and community-based programs offers a viable path forward, emphasizing fairness, efficacy, and human dignity. Critical reflection affirms that systemic change must involve collaborative, data-driven efforts across all facets of the criminal justice system.

References

• Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
• Berman, G., et al. (2014). Sentencing reform and the judicial system. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(1), 123-155.
• Clear, T. (2018). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
• Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
• Mitchell, O., et al. (2019). Alternatives to incarceration: Evidence from community-based approaches. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(3), 154-169.
• Prison Policy Initiative. (2018). The high costs of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative.
• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and community supervision. University of Chicago Press.
• The Sentencing Project. (2020). Trends in U.S. corrections. The Sentencing Project.
• Zeng, Z. (2018). Trends in state prisoner mortality, 2001-2014. Bureau of Justice Statistics.