Democratization of the Criminal Justice System Questions Paper Read the article and come up with 10 questions and answers in total. Don’t use simple quote

Democratization of the Criminal Justice System Questions Paper Read the article and come up with 10 questions and answers in total. Don’t use simple quote as an answer. no yes/no question. No true/false question. reference the page number after the answerexample:What is the evidence of the inequality of colored and white people during the Drug War?Teens of 12 to 17 who are white are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American teens (99). White students use cocaine 7 times higher than blacks, heroine 7 times higher than them and 8 times more on crack (112-113). Copyright 2017 by Joshua Kleinfeld et al.
Printed in U.S.A.
Vol. 111, No. 6
WHITE PAPER OF DEMOCRATIC CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
Joshua Kleinfeld, Laura I Appleman,
Richard A. Bierschbach, Kenworthey Bilz,
Josh Bowers, John Braithwaite,
Robert P. Burns, R A Duff,
Albert W. Dzur, Thomas F. Geraghty,
Adriaan Lanni, Marah Stith McLeod,
Janice Nadler, Anthony O’Rourke,
Paul H. Robinson, Jonathan Simon,
Jocelyn Simonson, Tom R. Tyler
& Ekow N. Yankah
ABSTRACT—This white paper is the joint product of nineteen professors of
criminal law and procedure who share a common conviction: that the path
toward a more just, effective, and reasonable criminal system in the United
States is to democratize American criminal justice. In the name of the
movement to democratize criminal justice, we herein set forth thirty
proposals for democratic criminal justice reform.
AUTHORS—Joshua Kleinfeld, Associate Professor of Law and (by
courtesy) Philosophy, Northwestern University. Laura I Appleman,
Associate Dean of Faculty Research and Professor of Law, Willamette
University. Richard A. Bierschbach, Dean and Professor, Wayne State
University Law School. Kenworthey Bilz, Professor of Law, University of
Illinois College of Law. Josh Bowers, F. Palmer Weber Professor of Law,
University of Virginia School of Law. John Braithwaite, Distinguished
Professor, Australian National University. Robert P. Burns, William W.
Gurley Memorial Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
Antony Duff, Emeritus Professor, University of Stirling. Albert W. Dzur,
Professor, Political Science, Bowling Green State University. Thomas F.
Geraghty, Director of the Bluhm Legal Clinic (1976–2017) and Class of
1967 James B. Haddad Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of
Law. Adriaan Lanni, Touroff-Glueck Professor of Law, Harvard Law
School. Marah Stith McLeod, Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law
School. Janice Nadler, Stanford Clinton Research Professor of Law,
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Anthony O’Rourke, Associate
1693
NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW
Professor, University of Buffalo School of Law. Paul H. Robinson, Colin
S. Diver Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Jonathan Simon, Adrian A. Kragen Professor of Law, University of
California Berkeley School of Law. Jocelyn Simonson, Assistant Professor
of Law, Brooklyn Law School. Tom R. Tyler, Macklin Fleming Professor
of Law and Professor of Psychology, Yale Law School. Ekow N. Yankah,
Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School.
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1694
I. REFORMS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ……………………………………………… 1697
II. REFORMS TO SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW ………………………………………………… 1698
III. REFORMS TO POLICING …………………………………………………………………………….. 1699
IV. REFORMS TO THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS…………………………………………………… 1700
V. REFORMS TO SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS …………………………………………….. 1702
INTRODUCTION
In order to act collectively on matters of criminal justice reform and to
clarify what it means to democratize criminal justice, the nineteen members
of the democratization movement listed above have authored the thirty
policy proposals that follow.
Some background is in order about the broader vision underlying
these proposals. Although many Americans have come to think that the
country’s criminal justice system is malfunctioning in ways that do
profound damage to the country, views about why the system has
unraveled and how it could be set right can seem chaotically varied and
conflicting. Yet the views are not as chaotic as they might appear: within
the welter of diverse arguments, two distinct perspectives can be seen. On
one side are those who think the root of the present crisis is the outsized
influence of the American public and the solution is to place control over
criminal justice in the hands of officials and experts. On the other side are
those who think the root of the crisis is a set of bureaucratic attitudes,
structures, and incentives divorced from the American public’s concerns
and sense of justice, and the solution is to make criminal justice more
community-focused and responsive to lay influences. In a word, the first
group thinks the direction forward is bureaucratic professionalization, the
second thinks it is democratization. Of course, the two positions are not
always mutually exclusive, and the dichotomy simplifies the views on both
sides to some extent, as any such dichotomy would. But the dichotomy
captures a great deal of the relevant variation, and it has the benefit of
1694
111:1693 (2017)
White Paper
bringing larger ideas to bear on what might otherwise be a cacophony of
conflicting claims. The two views, democratization and bureaucratic
professionalization, represent a conflict of visions.
On November 18 and 19, 2016, a group of democratizers assembled at
the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago with four
goals: to combine our diverse lines of research in order to establish
democratic criminal justice as a school of thought; to identify and critically
examine the ideas at the core of that school of thought; to project our ideas
and awareness of our movement into the broader world of scholars,
lawyers, judges, policymakers, activists, journalists, and the public; and to
act publicly and collectively on matters of criminal justice reform. The
Northwestern University Law Review agreed to publish a cross-section of
the contributions to that conference in a Symposium Issue entitled
Democratizing Criminal Justice. The Symposium begins with a Manifesto
of Democratic Criminal Justice, which presents the above democratization/
bureaucratization distinction in depth, and continues with fourteen essays
setting forth the case for democratic criminal justice on constitutional,
philosophical, empirical, and racial justice grounds. For the most part,
however, those fourteen essays and the Manifesto develop large themes,
principles, and lines of evidence rather than particular suggestions for legal
change or political action. This White Paper of Democratic Criminal
Justice, which ends the Symposium, translates the larger ideas into specific
policy proposals. In so doing, this White Paper aims both to clarify what
democratic criminal justice means and to equip the democratization
movement to have a practical impact on the world.
In order to produce these thirty policy proposals, each of the above
authors was invited to submit a few policy proposals to the group, which
discussed, negotiated, and rediscussed and renegotiated the proposals in an
iterative drafting process. Many proposals did not survive the process; none
survived without modification. The thirty policy proposals below are those
that won general assent.
Inevitably, given this process, the policy proposals below do not
reflect and should not be taken to reflect any individual author’s views in
full. No participant agrees in all particulars with all proposals on the list,
and every participant had to leave proposals in which he or she does
believe off the list. Indeed, none of us deny that some worthwhile reforms
to criminal justice would be professionalizing rather than democratizing, or
that some would fall outside the democratization/bureaucratization
dichotomy altogether. To be a member of our movement is only to think
that the arrow of reform points in the direction of democratization in
essential respects or on the whole; it is not necessary to think
1695
NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW
democratization is all that matters. It is also not necessary to live and work
in the United States: some of the democratizers listed above live and work
internationally but take part in the democratization project because they
think the perspective captures something of general significance about how
criminal justice should function and that at least some of the policy
proposals below have counterparts in their own countries. The proposals
below are thus not meant to comprehensively catalogue all the useful
changes that might be undertaken in American criminal justice, nor are
they meant to apply only to American criminal justice. They are meant to
identify a set of policies that would make the American criminal system
more just, effective, and reasonable, and to exemplify the vision of a more
democratic criminal system.
If the collective process by which these proposals were produced
necessitated a measure of compromise, the process also had this great
benefit: by collecting many different perspectives on democratization
together, the proposals below demonstrate how diverse the policies
connected to democratizing criminal law can be. Indeed, the proposals
demonstrate how multi-faceted the very concept of democracy can be. Our
policy suggestions focus variously on the place of lay citizens’ values and
sense of justice in criminal law and procedure; on lay participation in
criminal law’s administration and enforcement; on equal citizenship and,
through equal citizenship, minority rights; on the deliberative links between
the people and their government; on transparency and accountability; on
localized administration of criminal justice that allows the people most
affected by a decision to have a say in it; on putting groups that share a
cultural world in a position to substantially direct their collective life; on
the need in the criminal justice context to foster functional communities; on
the problem of measures that unnecessarily fracture the body politic or
exclude people from the social contract; etc. Given this great diversity, one
might fear that “democracy” has come to mean everything and therefore
nothing, a word that everyone can agree about only because it is so thin.
The problem is a familiar one: so many governments and ideologies have
claimed democracy’s mantle that the term can seem infinitely malleable
and therefore infinitely manipulable. But nothing in the proposals below
surrenders or distorts the core concept of a self-governing people. If the test
of meaningfulness is that some readers will disagree, the proposals below
emphatically qualify.
In the course of deliberating about these proposals, one point of
variation in our views of democracy arose often enough that it bears
mention here: while all of us believe in the merit and importance of public
opinion in a just and functional criminal system, some of us are relatively
1696
111:1693 (2017)
White Paper
wary of the direct influence of voters on criminal justice matters and lean
toward lay engagement through informed, deliberative mini-publics (for
example, juries). Others in the movement are relatively comfortable taking
public opinion as we find it, involving larger groups of people with less
expert guidance, and trusting to the forms of deliberative engagement that
happen naturally in the culture or in the course of political competition. For
the most part, we tried to craft the language of the proposals below in ways
that would avoid taking sides on this disagreement, although inevitably
some of the proposals lean in one direction or the other. In any case, the
larger point stands: while of course our views as to democracy’s place in
criminal justice vary to some degree, they do not vary so much as to
undermine the distinctiveness of our identity as a school of thought in
criminal law and procedure and a movement in criminal justice reform.
We democratizers thus present these proposals in the hope that they
will inspire new ways of thinking and a greater measure of justice in an
area of American public life that sorely needs both.
I.
REFORMS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
1. Community Views of Justice.—Rules, standards, and institutional
practices that violate community views of justice, or are inconsistent with
the social norms reflected in ordinary social practices, should be eliminated
from criminal law and procedure unless such rules, standards, or
institutional practices are the only means of promoting an interest that the
community agrees to be more important than community views of justice
or the norms reflected in ordinary social practices.
2. Jury Revival.—Juries should be included in the criminal justice
process whenever reasonably possible, including at the investigative,
charging, trial, and sentencing phases of criminal procedure. All juries,
including grand, trial, and sentencing juries, should be drawn from within
the immediate, local community in which the crime was committed and
provided with broad factual, legal, and equitable information and decisional
authority. Practices of plea bargaining should be modified to give juries
meaningful supervisory authority over the outcome of the plea process, or,
to the extent juries are not given such authority, the proportion of cases
resolved by plea bargain should be greatly reduced. Practices of excluding
citizens from juries based on their attitudes toward or histories with the
criminal justice system, both as a matter of law and as a matter of practice,
should be reduced in favor of a presumption of random selection and
inclusion.
1697
NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW
3. Equal Citizenship.—Equal citizenship should be a foundational
principle of criminal justice. The principle of equal citizenship requires, but
is not limited to, fairness and functionally equal rights across lines of race
and wealth, and applies to the substance of criminal law, enforcement of
criminal law, criminal procedure, and sentencing. Judges should broadly
and vigorously interpret and apply the Equal Protection Clause of the
United States Constitution, as well as other relevant constitutional and
statutory provisions, to uphold and enforce the principle of equal
citizenship throughout criminal justice.
4. Criminal Law as Last Resort.—Noncriminal approaches to social
problems should be favored over the criminal instrument and resources
should be directed toward those noncriminal approaches whenever
reasonably possible, consistent with community views of justice, and
consistent with upholding community values.
II.
REFORMS TO SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW
5. Decriminalization.—There should be a strong presumption in
favor of decriminalization and against new forms of criminalization where
a substantial proportion of the population engages in the prohibited conduct
as a matter of facts on the ground and the conduct is nonviolent; where the
prohibited conduct is not wrong in itself given community views of justice;
where the criminalization is an instrument or pretext by which to target
harms or wrongs downstream or otherwise separate from the prohibited
conduct; or where the criminalization is overlapping or redundant with
other elements of the penal code.
6. Blameworthiness.—All crimes carrying a maximum sentence of
more than six months should require a showing of moral blameworthiness,
where “moral blameworthiness” entails, at a minimum, disregard for the
rights or welfare of others or intent to violate the law. The showing of
moral blameworthiness may be framed as a component of mens rea, a
separate element of the offense, an affirmative defense, or in some other
fashion, but it should be construed as a question of fact presumptively in
the hands of juries, and it should never be established automatically,
mechanically, or as a matter of law.
7. Delimitation of Offense Categories.—The use of the legal
category of “felony” should be greatly reduced to cover only truly major
crime, both in terms of the seriousness of the underlying conduct,
threatened result, or actual result, and in terms of the underlying conduct’s
moral blameworthiness. The legal category of “violation” or “petty
misdemeanor” should be created or expanded to cover all malum
1698
111:1693 (2017)
White Paper
prohibitum or otherwise minor offenses. The legal category of
“misdemeanor” should be used to cover all remaining crimes and should be
the default and presumptive category of new or uncategorized forms of
criminalization unless the underlying conduct clearly qualifies as a felony
or violation according to the above standards. Delimitations of crimes as
major or minor and other grading decisions should reflect community
views of justice.
8. Recodification.—Penal codes should be recodified to eliminate
overlap among offenses; to eliminate internal grading inconsistencies given
community views of justice; to take into account information about
community impact, including racial and class-based impact; and to require
a strong rule of lenity.
9. Community–Legislature Links.—Advisory committees to aid
legislatures in the process of crafting substantive and procedural criminal
law should be established. These advisory committees should include a
diverse mixture of lay citizens, community leaders, judges, prosecutors,
public defenders, private criminal justice attorneys, police officers, criminal
justice scholars, and other stakeholders and experts in criminal justice, and
should be formed in such a way that no one group, nor any combination of
groups with consistently aligned interests, has sufficient numbers or
influence to exercise effective control over the whole. The design of the
committees and process by which they participate in advising legislatures
should be such as to counter the influence of special interests and lobbies;
to empower diffuse and potentially politically passive majorities; to
transmit information about criminal justice legislation and related matters
to voters; to transmit information about voters’ preferences, particularly
voters’ informed preferences, to legislatures; and broadly to enhance the
quality, accuracy, and frequency of deliberative communication between
legislatures and voters with respect to criminal justice.
III.
REFORMS TO POLICING
10. Procedural Justice and Policing.—Police practices and a police
culture consistent with norms of procedural justice, fairness, and legitimacy
should be fostered. This includes recruiting officers with roots in or links to
the communities they police; selecting and training officers to have a
guardian rather than warrior mentality; training officers to de-escalate
situations of confrontation; and evaluating officers and departments based
on metrics that reflect community trust.
1699
NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW
11. Racial Justice and Policing.—Racialized policing should be
eliminated, including racialized investigative and traffic activity. Police
officers should be selected, trained, and tracked for racial fairness.
12. Community–Police Links.—Civilian review boards to advise
police departments and liaise between police departments and local
communities should be established. The boards should include individuals
of diverse backgrounds, at least some of whom live in the neighborhoods in
which the majority of police activity takes place. The boards should have
the authority to gather information and provide advice regarding police
priorities, policies, and informal practices, as well as disciplinary decisions
involving individual officers. The boards should disseminate that
information and advice to the local community whenever possible in light
of confidentiality concerns, taking into account goals of transparency,
legitimacy, and ultimate democratic control. The boards should encourage
restorative conferencing within the community for excessive force claims
and other claims of misconduct involving police. The possibility of making
civilian review boards’ advice presumptively binding or binding subject to
veto should be considered.
IV.
REFORMS TO THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS
13. Parity of Resources.—Public defenders and prosecutors should
enjoy commensurate resou…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment