Week 2 - Assignment Recommendation: Review The Requirements

Week 2 - Assignment Recommendation: Review the requirements for the Final Paper, and tie your research to its requirements. Who has the most influence on crime control policy? The president? The governor? Our representatives?

Summarize the key elements of the selected crime control policy. Explain the political process that sets the foundation for the selected crime control policy. Examine the role of the federal government when it comes to formulating crime control policy. Discuss how the U.S. Congress influences crime control policy of the states and ensures consistency of laws among the states (Note: Traditionally, crime control legislation falls under state legislatures).

Your paper must:

• Be three to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
• Include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper, Student’s name, Course name and number, Instructor’s name, Date submitted.
• Use at least five scholarly sources in addition to the course text. Document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
• Include a separate references page formatted according to APA style.
• Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

The influence of various governmental actors on crime control policy is a multi-faceted subject, involving the roles of the president, governors, legislatures, and federal agencies. The selection of a specific crime control policy serves as a basis for understanding how these actors shape, influence, and implement policy measures. For this paper, I have chosen the "Three-Strikes Law" as the focus of analysis, a policy that aims to impose mandatory sentences on repeat offenders to deter serious crimes.

Key Elements of the Three-Strikes Law

The Three-Strikes Law is designed to enhance the punitive measures for individuals convicted of multiple serious crimes. Its core elements include mandatory life sentences or long-term imprisonment for offenders who have been convicted of two or more serious or violent crimes. The law aims to incapacitate repeat offenders and serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. Variations exist across states, but the fundamental principle remains consistent: escalating punishment based on prior convictions.

Implementation typically involves judicial discretion within the legislative framework, and the law emphasizes swift and certain punishment to reduce recidivism rates. Critics argue that it may lead to unjust long-term imprisonments for minor infractions compounded by prior offenses, raising concerns about over-incarceration.

The Political Process Behind the Development of the Three-Strikes Law

The inception of the Three-Strikes Law was driven by a combination of public concerns about rising crime rates and political ambition to demonstrate toughness on crime. In the 1990s, political figures capitalized on these concerns, framing the law as a necessary tool to ensure public safety. Legislative debates involved stakeholder input, advocacy groups, and evidence from crime statistics. State legislators, influenced by constituents and media narratives, introduced bills that gradually gained momentum through hearings, revisions, and party support.

Public opinion played a critical role, with voters often supporting stricter sentencing policies, which led to the law’s swift adoption in several states. The policy's political foundation was thus rooted in a combination of perceived public need, political rhetoric, and strategic legislative action.

The Role of the Federal Government in Crime Control Policy Formulation

The federal government influences crime control policies through funding, broad legislative frameworks, and national initiatives. Agencies like the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation provide research, resources, and leadership in national crime prevention efforts. While criminal legislation primarily falls under state jurisdiction, the federal government sets overarching priorities and encourages states to align their policies with national standards.

Programs like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 exemplify federal influence, offering grants and mandates that shape state policies. Moreover, federal agencies often monitor and evaluate state implementations, providing guidelines to ensure uniformity and accountability in crime prevention and control strategies.

Congressional Influence on State Crime Laws and Civic Consistency

U.S. Congress influences state crime policies primarily through the allocation of federal funding and conditional grants. Federal funds tied to crime prevention initiatives incentivize states to adopt certain policies consistent with federal priorities. For example, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program distributes funds that support local law enforcement, encouraging states and cities to implement specific crime control strategies.

Additionally, Congress may enact legislation that sets minimum standards or mandates certain practices, such as mandatory sentencing laws or restrictions on criminal justice policies. These statutes often act as benchmarks, prompting states to calibrate their laws accordingly to receive federal support or avoid legal challenges. The interplay between federal mandates, funding, and state sovereignty reflects the complex dynamic in maintaining policy coherence across varying jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The development and implementation of crime control policies involve multiple layers of influence. While state legislatures traditionally hold primary responsibility, federal programs, congressional legislation, and executive actions significantly shape and standardize these policies. Understanding who influences crime control policy—whether the president, governor, or representatives—requires examining their roles within the broader political and legal system. The Three-Strikes Law exemplifies how political motivations, public opinion, and federal-state interactions converge to produce impactful criminal justice policies that directly affect public safety outcomes.

References

• Arsneault, R. (2014). Criminal Justice Policy. Pearson.
• Beckett, K. (1997). Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. Oxford University Press.
• Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Miller, J. (2007). The politics of tough on crime policies. Law & Society Review, 41(3), 551–580.
• Mauer, M., & King, R. (2007). Sentencing and corrections in America: Historically grounded and politically limited reforms. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 497–521.
• Reno, H. (2010). Federal influence on state criminal justice policies. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(2), 457–495.
• Tonry, M. (2014). The politics of crime policy. Crime and Justice, 43(1), 127–164.
• Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19.
• Walker, S. (2004). Crime control and the politics of punishment. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(2), 255–265.
• Worrall, J. L. (20112). Crime and Public Policy. Routledge.