Crime, Responsibility and the Law in the US

Crime and punishment are complex issues that have been debated for centuries. How does a society determine what acts should be considered criminal? When someone commits a crime, who is morally responsible – the individual or society? What is the purpose of laws and punishment – retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence? The United States legal system has evolved over time to address these difficult questions, but tensions around crime and justice remain deeply rooted in American culture. This article will provide an overview of key issues related to crime, responsibility, and law in the contemporary United States.

Defining Crime

A crime is an act that breaks the law and is punishable through prosecution by the government. Criminal acts may include theft, assault, murder, drug offenses and more. Most criminal offenses fit into two major categories:

  • Mala in se: Crimes that are inherently wrong or evil, such as murder, rape, robbery and assault. These acts violate moral standards that most people would agree on, regardless of written laws.
  • Mala prohibita: Crimes that are only illegal because laws prohibit them, like gambling, immigration violations, and traffic offenses. Standards vary on whether these “victimless crimes” should be punished.[1]

Laws at the federal, state and local levels determine definitions for specific crimes and their punishments. For example, while some states have legalized recreational marijuana use, it remains federally prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act.[2] Definitions of violent crimes like murder versus manslaughter also vary between jurisdictions. Overall, defining crime involves balancing protection of individuals and society with fairness and consistency in the law’s application. Disagreements frequently arise on where boundaries for criminalization should be drawn.

Causes of Crime

Understanding the root causes of crime is crucial for shaping effective policies that deter criminal acts and prevent re-offending. Major theories differ on whether causal factors are primarily located within individuals or social environments.[3]

Individualistic theories emphasize personal traits that incline people toward criminality, including:

  • Genetic or biological predispositions
  • Mental illness or personality disorders
  • Moral deficiencies like greed or lacking empathy
  • Rational choice to maximize self-interest

In contrast, sociological theories identify social conditions that shape criminal motivations and opportunities, including:

  • Poverty and economic inequality
  • Family dysfunction or abuse during childhood
  • Associating with criminals (social learning theory)
  • Breakdown of social cohesion and controls
  • Stigma and lack of access to education/employment

Integrated theories attempt to bridge gaps between individual and societal contributors. For instance, social disorganization theory emphasizes both cultural values conducive to crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods and structural barriers faced by individuals within those communities.[4]

Understanding multiple causal factors can help address criminal acts through rehabilitation, education, mental health treatment, economic development, community engagement, deterrence and other approaches. However, definitive conclusions on preventing crime remain controversial.

Moral Responsibility for Crime

When someone commits a crime, who ultimately bears responsibility? Philosophers have long debated definitions of free will, morality and culpability. Modern legal systems aim to balance individual accountability with mitigating circumstances.[5]

The “choice theory” of responsibility dominates in U.S. criminal law today. It argues that defendants deserve punishment because they consciously chose to commit an illegal act. Exceptions are made for minors below the “age of reason” and adults who are legally insane (unable to understand their actions or distinguish right from wrong). Defendants may also argue that external threats or lack of intent creates diminished responsibility. Juries or judges then determine appropriate convictions and sentencing.[6]

However, critics argue that social deprivation and other structural factors limit opportunities and instill distorted values in ways that constrain choices. Some contend that criminality itself may signal mental health problems that undermine meaningful consent. Advocates for restorative rather than punitive justice models emphasize healing over punishment. From this lens, criminal acts stem largely from societal failings. Justice requires addressing tragic harms done rather than harshly judging the blameworthy.[7]

These different interpretations have important implications for the purposes and preferred models of law enforcement and corrections. Debates continue between individual responsibility versus social justice perspectives. Integrated approaches consider both individual accountability and social responsibility for crime.

Purposes of Criminal Justice

Criminal justice systems aim to achieve several goals, which often conflict in practice:

  • Retribution: Punishing culpable offenses in proportion to their severity. This fulfills desires for justice and helps victims feel the harm was recognized. However, evidence on deterrence effects is mixed.[8]
  • Rehabilitation: Providing treatment and training to correct criminal tendencies and prepare offenders to become law-abiding citizens after release. But costs are high and success rates variable.[9]
  • Incapacitation: Physically separating offenders from society, through execution or imprisonment, to prevent future crimes. Yet policies like mandatory minimums and “three strikes” laws have raised costs without clearly improving public safety.[10]
  • Deterrence: Discouraging criminal acts through fear of punishment. Certainty of apprehension is more consistently effective than harsh sentences. But deterrence effects remain challenging to measure.[11]
  • Restoration: Repairing the injuries crime causes through reconciling victims, offenders and communities. Victim-offender mediation programs demonstrate promise but have limited reach so far.[12]

Debates weigh these sometimes competing goals. For example, retribution demands strict sentencing, while rehabilitation requires customized treatment plans. Most systems blend objectives but emphasize some over others based on current public sentiment and research evidence.

U.S. Criminal Justice: An Overview

The contemporary U.S. criminal justice system is often described as having three major components:

  • Police – Law enforcement officers who apprehend suspects, investigate crimes and maintain public order. Local police handle most crime, with support from state and federal agencies for jurisdictions, expertise and coordination needs.[13]
  • Courts – The judicial system interprets laws and oversees legal processes like trials to determine criminal guilt or innocence. State courts handle most cases, with federal courts focusing on federal crimes.[14]
  • Corrections – Prisons, jails and probation/parole systems carry out punishments prescribed through the courts. The U.S. has the world’s largest prison population.[15] Most inmates are held in state prisons and local jails.

While often conceived as a linear system, in practice these components have interrelated and overlapping functions. Discretion throughout the process contributes to selective enforcement and racial disparities, especially for drug crimes.[16] Key features and issues for each component are discussed below.

Police and Law Enforcement

There are about 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. employing over 800,000 sworn officers.[17] Police powers include making arrests, conducting investigations, surveillance and more. Use of force policies regulate deploying weapons and physical coercion. Controversies around racism and excessive force in stops, searches and lethal shootings fuel recent “defund the police” debates.[18]

Key features shape modern American policing:

  • Local control – Most agencies are locally operated and accountable. Critics argue fragmentation hinders coordination.[19]
  • Reliance on automobiles – Extensive patrol areas make vehicles central to police work. However, critics contend overemphasis on minor traffic stops can damage community relations.[20]
  • Mandatory arrest policies – Growing adoption of pro-arrest approaches aims to curb intimate partner violence, but may discourage victims from reporting.[21]
  • Militarization – The 1033 program and post-9/11 funding swelled acquisition of military equipment by local police, though impacts are debated.[22]
  • CompStat data systems – Pioneered in New York, crime data mapping systems help target “hot spots” but risk distorting police activities toward statistics.[23]

Current challenges include addressing racial profiling, excessive force, improving training, coordinating across jurisdictions, and leveraging technology to enhance community relations and effectiveness.[24]

Courts and Adjudication

Courts apply procedural rules to determine if those accused of crimes are guilty and assign punishment for convictions. Steps include arraignment, pretrial motions, plea bargaining, jury selection, trials, and sentencing. About 95% of convictions result from plea bargains rather than trials.[25]

Key features and issues include:

  • Cash bail systems – Requiring bail payment for pretrial release disproportionately impacts the poor and minorities.[26]
  • Mandatory minimums – Laws constraining judicial discretion on sentencing remain controversial and declining.[27]
  • “Truth-in-sentencing” laws – Policies requiring convicts to serve large fractions of sentences aim to ensure punishments are not shortened.[28]
  • “Three strikes” laws – Repeat offender laws mandating strict sentences, typically 25-years to life, after three felony convictions are declining after mixed reviews.[29]
  • Election of judges – Selection through public elections rather than appointments risks compromising impartiality.[30]
  • Racial disparities – Discrimination and structural inequality contribute to disproportionate conviction and sentencing of minorities, especially for drug crimes.[31]

Reforms aim to curtail biases and excessive punishments while improving representation, transparency and focus on public safety over process.

Corrections and Reentry Support

Over 2 million Americans are incarcerated, mostly in state prisons (around 1.3 million) and local jails (around 650,000).[32] Prison populations grew nearly 5-fold since the mid-1970s due to stricter sentencing policies.[33] The U.S. far surpasses other nations in incarceration rates.[34]

Debates on costs versus benefits of mass incarceration persist. Potential reforms include reducing harsh sentences, expanding parole and probation, and improving education and rehabilitation programs. Research suggests effectively preparing inmates for “reentry” into society reduces recidivism.[35] Supportive housing, job training, treatment for substance abuse and mental health issues, and mentoring programs for ex-convicts demonstrate promise but remain limited in capacity.[36]

Racial disparities also pervade corrections, with African Americans and Hispanics far more likely than whites to be incarcerated.[37] Addressing biases throughout the system could help reduce mass incarceration. Reforms also aim to reverse growth of private prisons, where human rights advocates protest conditions and lack of accountability.[38]

Future Directions in U.S. Justice Policy

Diverse movements call for criminal justice reforms in the United States. Though specific aims vary, most cite a need to:

  • Reduce harsh sentencing and expand alternative programs, especially for nonviolent offenses.
  • Improve transparency and accountability for police and prison systems.
  • Eliminate racial, socioeconomic and other disparities.
  • Shift some resources from punishment to crime prevention.
  • Enhance rehabilitation and support successful reentry after convictions.

Opinions diverge on how far reforms should reach. For example, “tough on crime” proponents resist major changes to mandatory minimums and truth-in-sentencing laws.[39] Yet reform momentum appears strong, uniting both left-leaning and some libertarian or faith-based conservatives.[40] With over 2,000 reform bills introduced in state legislatures in recent years, policies continue evolving across diverse jurisdictions.[41]

Ongoing areas of debate include bail and sentencing reforms, easing harsh penalties for drug crimes, expanding restorative programs for juveniles, limiting fines and fees levied on defendants, and improving police training and culture. Reform implementation data and impact studies will help guide effectiveness. Advocates emphasize change is long overdue, while skeptics question potential risks of reduced deterrence and punishment.


Managing crime involves navigating complex tensions – between individual blame and social causes, harsh penalties and humane second chances, punishment and rehabilitation. Reasonable people disagree on where lines should be drawn. However, evidence suggests America’s sprawling prison systems are costly and often counterproductive for public safety. Mounting momentum toward a more balanced, equitable and restorative model of justice seems likely to yield further reforms, though progress may prove gradual. The arc of U.S. criminal justice continues evolving in pursuit of safer and more just communities.


[1] Schlegel, K. (1990). Just Deserts for Corporate Criminals. Northeastern University Press.

[2] Mikos, R. (2009). On the Limits of Supremacy: Medical Marijuana and the States’ Overlooked Power to Legalize Federal Crime. Vanderbilt Law Review, 62(5), 1421–1482.

[3] Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory. SAGE Publications.

[4] Kubrin, C. E., & Wo, J. C. (2016). Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Challenge: Linking Structural Characteristics to Crime in Socially Disorganized Communities. In The Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 121-136). Wiley Blackwell.

[5] Green, E., & Cohen, L. (2014). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Vol. 369, No. 1651, p. 20130471). The Royal Society.

[6] Moore, M. S. (1984). Law and Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press.

[7] Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: revised and updated. Simon and Schuster.

[8] National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. National Academies Press.

[9] Cullen, F. T. (2012). Taking rehabilitation seriously: Creativity, science, and the challenge of offender change. Punishment & Society, 14(1), 94-114.

[10] Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academy Press.

[11] Chalfin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 5-48.

[12] Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McAnoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319-338.

[13] Reaves, B.A. (2015). Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[14] Rottman, D., & Strickland, R. (2006). State court organization. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

[15] Peter Wagner & Wendy Sawyer (2018). States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018. Prison Policy Initiative.

[16] Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006). Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery arrests. Criminology, 44(1), 105-137.

[17] Hyland, S. S. (2018). Full-time employees in law enforcement agencies, 1997-2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[18] President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final Report. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

[19] Bayley, D. H., & Nixon, C. (2010). The changing environment for policing, 1985–2008. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. National Institute of Justice.

[20] Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. University of Chicago Press.

[21] Zeoli, A. M., Norris, A., & Brenner, H. (2011). Mandatory, preferred, or discretionary: How the classification of domestic violence warrantless arrest laws impacts their estimated effects on intimate partner homicide. Evaluation review, 35(2), 129-152.

[22] Balko, R. (2013). Rise of the warrior cop: The militarization of America’s police forces. Public Affairs.

[23] Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2007). Making sense of COMPSTAT: A theory-based analysis of organizational change in three police departments. Law & Society Review, 41(1), 147-188.

[24] Lum, C. & Koper, C.S. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press.

[25] Devers, L. (2011). Plea and Charge Bargaining. Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

[26] Heaton, P., Mayson, S., & Stevenson, M. (2017). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stan. L. Rev., 69, 711.

[27] Stemen, D., Rengifo, A. F., & Wilson, J. (2006). Of Fragmentation and Ferment: The Impact of State Sentencing Policies on Incarceration Rates, 1975–2002. National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

[28] Sabol, W. J., Rosich, K., Kane, K. M., Kirk, D. P., & Dubin, G. (2002). The Influences of Truth-in-Sentencing Reforms on Changes in States’ Sentencing Practices and Prison Populations. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

[29] Chen, E. Y. (2008). Impacts of” three strikes and you’re out” on crime trends in California and throughout the United States. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(4), 345-370.

[30] Nelson, M. J. (2017). Uncontested and unaccountable? Rates of contestation in trial court elections. Judicature, 101, 22.

[31] Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.

[32] Bronson, J. & Carson, E.A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 252156.

[33] National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. National Acade

[34] Peter Wagner & Wendy Sawyer (2018). States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018. Prison Policy Initiative.

[35] Visher, C.A. & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.

[36] Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry-reviewing and questioning the evidence. Fed. Probation, 68, 4.

[37] Sakala, L. (2014). Breaking down mass incarceration in the 2010 census: State-by-state incarceration rates by race/ethnicity. Prison Policy Initiative.

[38] Mason, C. (2012). Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America. Sentencing Project.

[39] Lynch, J.P. & Sabol, W.J. (1997). Did getting tough on crime pay? Crime Policy Report No. 1. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

[40] Eisen, L.B. & Chettiar, I.M. (2015). The reverse mass incarceration act. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

[41] National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018). State Sentencing and Corrections Legislation.

5/5 - (41 votes)

SAKHRI Mohamed

I hold a bachelor's degree in political science and international relations as well as a Master's degree in international security studies, alongside a passion for web development. During my studies, I gained a strong understanding of key political concepts, theories in international relations, security and strategic studies, as well as the tools and research methods used in these fields.

Leave a Comment