250 word response due 10/18/2024 1 reference/intext citation
The term “non-system” reflects the absence of cohesion among the different components of the criminal justice system. While the term “system” implies an organized, coordinated mechanism where all parts work toward a common goal, the criminal justice system in the U.S. often lacks the necessary synchronization to be considered a true system (Bohm & Haley, 2017). At the local level, law enforcement officers are typically the first point of contact for individuals who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes. Local police departments may have their own set of rules and policies, distinct from state law enforcement agencies. Similarly, prosecutors, judges, and public defenders may operate differently from one jurisdiction to the next, creating inconsistencies in the application of justice. Furthermore, each state has its own penal codes and statutes, and what is considered a crime in one state may not be viewed as such in another. This further contributes to the patchwork nature of the system (Neubauer & Fradella, 2016). The federal level adds another layer of complexity. Federal agencies like the FBI and DEA enforce federal laws, which sometimes conflict with state laws. For instance, drug enforcement policies related to marijuana differ significantly between federal law and states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. This can lead to situations where federal agencies prosecute individuals for actions that are legal at the state level (Cole, 2019). The involvement of various government layers, each with its own agenda, leads to a criminal justice “non-system” where cooperation is often limited, and outcomes may vary widely depending on where a crime is committed.
The fragmented nature of the criminal justice system becomes especially clear when examining how different agencies and jurisdictions interact—or fail to interact. At the federal level, agencies like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security often have different missions and priorities than state and local entities. For example, while federal authorities might focus on large-scale organized crime or terrorism, local police departments are more concerned with community-level issues such as petty crime and maintaining public order (Mears & Cochran, 2015). The lack of a unifying goal among the various actors involved in the administration of justice further cements the idea of the criminal justice system as a “non-system.” Moreover, even within a single level of government, there are competing interests. Prosecutors may push for harsher sentences to appear tough on crime, while public defenders advocate for leniency or alternative sentencing options. Judges, particularly those who are elected, may also face pressures that influence their decisions differently from appointed judges (Tonry, 2019). The differences in priorities, resource allocation, and political influences further fragment the system. While the criminal justice system is commonly referred to as a “system,” it is more accurately described as a set of interconnected, yet often independent, parts working at multiple levels of government. These parts do not always function in harmony, and their goals are not always aligned. The inconsistencies in how justice is administered from one jurisdiction to another, combined with the lack of a cohesive, overarching strategy, make it difficult to characterize the criminal justice system as a true system.
