Criminal Justice Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zalman, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, 181-206 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/073401680002500203

Criminal Justice and the Future of Civil Liberties

Marvin Zalman

An earlier forecast that the criminal justice system will be effective in reducing crime and in preserving civil liberties is modified to account for an ambiguous criminal justice system that exhibits both autocratic and democratic policies and procedures. Social surveys confirm that the United States today enjoys a high degree of civil liberties. However, contemporary criminal justice is ambiguous, promoting policies that are autocratic and democratic. This is seen in the prevalence of police brutality at the same time that many police departments have adopted community policing, a democratic approach to police administration and operations.

This essay examines four sociopolitical concepts to explain the ambiguous criminal justice system within a liberal democracy: American exceptionalism, moral panics, "governing through crime," and the "great disruption" concept. Next, the construct of the quasi-autocratic state is proposed: a regime this is genuinely democratic and liberal for one part of its population (mostly white middle-class) while a distinct group of people (mostly lower-class people of color) live under autocratic conditions. The conclusion asserts that the criminal justice system is ambiguous and will continue to be so in the next 20 to 40 years. It also poses the lager question, without offering a definite answer, of whether the autocratic elements of criminal justice practice define the contemporary American polity as a quasi-autocratic state.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
H.-E. Sung
Democracy and Criminal Justice in Cross-National Perspective: From Crime Control to Due Process
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2006; 605(1): 311 - 337.
[Abstract] [PDF]