American Constitution Society

Skip to content



Criminal Justice

The administration of our criminal laws poses challenges to our nation’s fundamental belief in liberty and equality. Racial inequality permeates the system from arrest through sentencing. The United States’ imposition of the death penalty increasingly has set us apart from much of the world and has raised concerns about the execution of the innocent. Sentencing law and policy have led courts to impose lengthier sentences, resulting in the incarceration of an alarming percentage of our population. The recent invalidation of mandatory federal sentencing guidelines has left sentencing in flux. Failure to provide adequate resources for representation of accused individuals and investigation of their cases has weakened the criminal justice system. Restrictive rules governing collateral review of convictions have closed the courts to many. This Issue Group explores these and other issues affecting criminal justice.

The Issue Group's Co-Chairs are:


To get involved in the work of the Criminal Justice Issue Group, please fill out the Issue Group Sign-Up Form.

Also, please note that ACS ResearchLink features a number of topics related to the Criminal Justice Issue Group’s work on which law students are encouraged to focus their academic scholarship.
Recent Stories

Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention


Melissa Rothstein and Lovisa Stannow

Mon, 07/06/2009

ACS is pleased to distribute Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention, an Issue Brief by Melissa Rothstein, the East Coast Program Director for Just Detention International (JDI), and Lovisa Stannow, JDI's Executive Director. In 2003, Congress focused national attention on the problem of sexual violence in our prisons, jails, and detention facilities when it passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). A commission created under the law just completed a comprehensive, five-year process that resulted in recommended national standards designed to address the problem, and Attorney General Eric Holder has one year to review the recommended standards and adopt final binding national standards. When adopted, the standards will immediately apply to all federal detention facilities, and states will have one year to certify their compliance or risk losing 5% of their federal corrections-related funding. Rothstein and Stannow argue that the national standards "have the potential to dramatically improve the safety of corrections facilities nationwide for officers and inmates alike."

 

In their Issue Brief, Rothstein and Stannow discuss the urgent need for national standards addressing sexual abuse in detention, in addition to a strong monitoring system to improve safety in detention facilities. The authors detail the problem of sexual violence in detention and its systemic and managerial underpinnings. They then discuss the recommended national standards, and examine the need for improved corrections oversight and the vital role that the national standards can play. Finally, Rothstein and Stannow conclude by urging the Attorney General to ratify the recommended standards, as well as establish a strong, independent mechanism for measuring compliance.

AttachmentSize
Rothstein Stannow Issue Brief.pdf239.64 KB

The Roberts Court and the Future of the Exclusionary Rule


Susan A. Bandes

Wed, 04/01/2009

ACS is pleased to distribute "The Roberts Court and the Future of the Exclusionary Rule," an Issue Brief by Susan A. Bandes, Distinguished Research Professor at the DePaul University College of Law. Since the Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio in 1961, the exclusionary rule has been the primary method of enforcing against state and local law enforcement officers the Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule had previously been applied to federal law enforcement officials, but as Professor Bandes argues, "the Court's broad expansion of Fourth Amendment protection ignited a heated debate over the proper remedy for a violation of the right - a debate that continues to this day." She discusses the objections to the exclusionary rule, which are based on the high price it imposes on the government by prohibiting the use in court of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Professor Bandes continues by explaining that, "The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that would never have been acquired if the police had obeyed the Fourth Amendment in the first place. Thus the controversial nature of the remedy has much to do with the controversial nature of the underlying right. The Fourth Amendment imposes constraints on law enforcement officials in order to protect individual autonomy and dignity."

 

Based on changes in police practices that followed the Court's decision in Mapp, moreover, Professor Bandes asserts that "it has become apparent that the exclusionary rule is an essential means of ensuring that law enforcement officers respect the limits the Fourth Amendment imposes on their power." She also points out that the Mapp Court itself reasoned that "the government should neither profit from its own illegal activity nor model disrespect for the law through its own actions." Nevertheless, she argues that the Roberts Court has issued decisions that have weakened the exclusionary rule and even suggested that is it obsolete and no longer needed. Professor Bandes contends that these decisions are the logical extension of an effort that began in the Reagan-era Justice Department, led by then Attorney General Edwin Meese, to launch the first frontal attack on the exclusionary rule. She concludes by observing that, "Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom served in the Meese Justice Department, are now part of a four-member voting block (with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) that, to all appearances, is busily laying the groundwork for abandoning the exclusionary rule. They lack only a reliable fifth vote."

AttachmentSize
Bandes Issue Brief.pdf79.13 KB

Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy


Alex Kreit

Mon, 03/16/2009

ACS is pleased to distribute "Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy," an Issue Brief by Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. On March 11, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that he will nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to be the next director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the "Drug Czar." Chief Kerlikowske's nomination comes as we approach the 40th anniversary of the "war on drugs," which followed the passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Professor Kreit argues that, after nearly 40 years, "it is becoming increasingly clear that our current drug control strategy has not worked." He reaches this conclusion after discussing a variety of studies and surveys that detail the amount of money that has been spent by the United States as part of this "war," and the results we have gotten in terms of the rate of drug use in general, use of drugs by young people, and the ease of obtaining drugs, particularly in comparison to other countries that have used different approaches to addressing these issues. He also discusses the significant impact that U.S. drug policy has had on the size and composition of our prison population.

 

Professor Kreit calls on the President and the new Drug Czar to change the focus of our nation's drug policy from a punitive approach to one that looks at and addresses the problem through the lens of public health. In a discussion of recent surveys and election results, Professor Kreit sees the opportunity for politicians to seek fundamental change in our approach to combating drug use because the views of voters have been changing, and American citizens are now more open to these changes than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. He acknowledges that "[t]here is no magic bullet that can solve the problem of substance abuse." Nevertheless, Professor Kreit believes that "[t]here are ... a number of readily identifiable reforms that can help begin to set us on the right track and build a foundation for more significant improvements in the future." In particular, he suggests shifting funding from programs that have unsuccessfully focused on limiting the supply of drugs to programs that have proven successful at reducing demand, and seeking changes to federal law to remove provisions that are hampering the government's ability to pursue effective programs. In addition to adopting the changes he proposes, Professor Kreit concludes by advocating for the creation of a commission to conduct a comprehensive reevaluation of U.S. drug policy in light of the significant amount we have learned from other countries and four decades of our own experience with the current approach.

AttachmentSize
Kreit Issue Brief.pdf259.34 KB
More Stories