Chapter 1

21st power point

Criminal Justice in the 21st Century PowerPoint Extra Notes In this Unit, we will explore race class and gender-related issues in criminal justice work. It's first worth noting the overall size, as measured by expenditures, of our different criminal justice systems. Please keep in mind the size and expense of our criminal justice systems as we work through the material that follows. It's important first to go over some general facts on race/gender/class in terms of who works in criminal justice agencies. The following few slides do just that. So, please make sure you read about Bohm and Haley's three generalizations on page 24. The text has more space to adequately explain this than I do here, but it deals with variation, or differences across space, in policing. One thing about police work that does not vary considerably is that police officers are overwhelmingly white and male. All in all, 70% of sworn police officers are white men. Consider - if 70% are white AND male - how many are white (women) or (non-white) men? More than 70%, for sure. These are large majorities that illustrate policing is very much dominated by whiteness and masculinity. One interesting fact is that women and minorities are better represented at the federal level of policing. However, most policing occurs at local levels, where women and minorities are more underrepresented. Please remember from our unit on class that education is highly related to our economic power. What's intriguing about this for our purposes here is that educational requirements in policing are quite low, especially if you consider the amount of power they wield. Only 1% of police departments throughout the country require a 4-year college degree. Approximately 9% require at least a 2-year associates degree, and 81% require at least a high school diploma. Now, one thing you might consider is - if 81% require at least a high school diploma, that means that 19% don't. Of all courtroom workers, it is helpful to divide them into two categories. First, there are "members of the bar." These include judges and attorneys because, well, they are members of the bar! The second groups is referred to as "non-lawyers." These include everyone else - court reporters, aids, bailiffs, etc. With respect to race, class, and gender, members of the bar are overwhelmingly white men. Non-lawyers, with the exception of Bailiffs who are actually police officers, are overwhelmingly white women. Consider the disparities in authority and power between members of the bar and non-lawyers. There are some important differences between prosecutors and defense attorneys that have important implications for the balance of power in our adversarial system. First, prosecutors have more influence over legal proceedings than defense attorneys. Prosecutors decide whether to charge defendants, what to charge them with, and whether to offer a plea deal, for example. Defense attorney are generally in a position where they have to react to these choices that prosecutors make. Prosecutors are also much more tied into local politics and power. Prosecutors often work with mayors, police chiefs, and sheriffs. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, are often outside this circle of power. Lastly, defense attorneys often have little opportunities for ongoing training and are less able than prosecutors to specialize in certain types of crimes. All these essentially establish that prosecutors have more power or influence than defense attorneys. Important differences such as these, that alter the balance of power, can result in outcomes that have less to do with the "truth" and more to do with the relative power of the defense and prosecuting attorneys. To this point, wrongful convictions do happen. On average, we convict approximately 34,250 people each year of crimes they didn't commit. Now on to prisons. Again, it's important to establish some basic facts about race/class/gender in terms of who's working in prisons. Much like police and courtroom work (at least members of the bar), prison workers are overwhelmingly white men. Unlike policing where women and minorities are better represented at the federal level, women are better represented at the state level of prisons. These next few slides discuss an emerging trend in criminal justice in the 21st century - militarization. Your text discusses other emerging trends, such as terrorism and privatization. Make sure you read those. We'll spend our time here on militarization, which is arguably the most contentions of these issues. Slide 4 provides an apt description of militarization. It is commonly defined as the process of arming, organizing, planning, training for, and sometimes pursuing violent conflict. Militarization has had a variety of negative influences. First, research has shown that it does not keep police officers safer, which has been a major justification. Instead, statistics show that militarization has contributed to an increase in violence. This is true for suspects and police officers. Police officers are more likely to be harmed in the line of duty when using military tactics and raids. Of course, suspects are more likely to be harmed and even killed. Moreover, militarization tends to disproportionately affect poor minorities. That is, we tend not to conduct military-style raids in more affluent, white neighborhoods. They are primarily used in poorer, non-white areas. Militarization has also further discouraged women from applying to work in policing. Militarization heightens the hyper-masculine culture of policing

The crime control enterprise and its workers

Globalization and Immigration What is globalization? One Chief Economist of Morgan Stanley stated that globalization was "Billed as the great equalizer between the rich and the poor, globalization has been anything but." In some countries globalization has lead to additional pain and social injustice (i.e high rates of disease , poverty and hunger) How does "free trade" affect our criminal justice system? Globalization and Immigration Research reviews written by: Sentencing Project, American Society of Criminology and Conservative Cato Institute "All agree that the crime rates for immigrant populations are lower than those for people born in the United States" Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Allows ICE to enter into agreements with state and local police Some police departments resist this process "sanctuary cities" What needs to be fixed? To combat the underlying problems of Immigration the government should Enforce the minimum wage Grant the right of immigrants to organize Provide health and safety protections Militarization The militarization of law enforcement includes the processes of arming, organizing, planning, training for, and sometimes pursuing violent conflict Militarism: "a set of beliefs, values and assumptions that stress the use of force and threat of violence as the most appropriate means to solve problems. It glorifies the use of military power, hardware, operations and technology as its primary problem-solving tools". In 1983, 13% of towns with populations from 25k-50K had a SWAT team, but now almost 90% do. Reactive units have become Proactive Units (War on Drugs) Concerns with the terminology "War" Tibetan Monks example Military personnel train and assist these specialized units Privatization Privatization refers to the process of government outsourcing certain tasks to for-profit business. Nominal privatization vs operational privatization Private Prisons and the CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) currently known as (Core Civic). How does politics affect private prison business? In 2010, $42,820 ( Public correction officers and jailers), $37,570 (private prison correctional officers) In 2012, CEO of CCA ($2.8 million down from, $3.7 in 2011); CEO of GEO ($6 million in 2012). What are the potential consequences of hiring cheap non-union labor? Cybercrime/Security President Obama's declaration of a new security czar to thwart cybercrime What was "Stuxnet?" Cyber Crime and "virtual dark markets" The Deep Web has become a popular among criminals, political dissidents, hackers etc. Millions are being spent on government agencies to crack this "Deep Web" Bitcoin is the currency for the Deep Web (anonymous transactions i.e. cash) Law Enforcement Workers No two police agencies are the same in the way they function (Bohm and Haley, 2005) 3 generalizations about law enforcement in the U.S.(pg. 24) Differences in Salary and Educational levels (see notes below) Women and Minorities are underrepresented at the Federal level and fare worse at the state and local levels (33% to 24%) National Center for Women report that female officers have declined somewhat in large police agencies Down from 14.9% (1999) to 12.7% (2001) Women account for 7.3% (Command positions), 9.6% (Supervisory positions), Women of color: 1.6% (Command positions), 3.1% (Supervisory positions) Making Sense of the Statistics Women and minorities are challenged with entering into an overwhelmingly white male work environment (women of color being doubly disadvantaged) Sexual and racial discrimination acts to preserve some criminal justice professions, especially law enforcement, as disproportionately white male domains National Center for Women in Policing (2002) states "once on the job, women often face discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and are maliciously thwarted, especially if they move up the ranks" Women of color have additional barriers (United States v. City of Chicago) Minorities are forced to "fit in" and their community identity and loyalty are questioned Minority officers working undercover are killed by other cops Judicial Workers Member of the legal Bar (attorneys and judges) Four year college Law School Passed the Bar Certified to practice law Non-lawyers Bailiffs Stenographers Victim witness and domestic violence advocates Prosecutors Federal U.S. Attorney General 93 US Attorneys All nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate State District Attorney or Chief Prosecutor (most are elected) Assistant District Attorneys (handle day-to-day operations) Defense Attorneys 6th Amendment Come on the stage once the Prosecutor has pressed charges Alienated and Isolated from local politics All defense attorneys are not adequately trained and specialized Public defender/Assigned counsel v Private attorney Nearly 70% of state inmates had a court appointed attorney Judges Oversee state level trial courts of general jurisdiction Some states lower courts do not require the judge to be a lawyer or have any former legal training. U.S. judges are: Overwhelmingly White and Male Come from Upper-Middle-class families Average 50yrs old Attended college and law school in their home state Born in the communities that they serve Corrections Workers Frequent and closest contact with inmates Deal with role ambiguity and role strain (custody v treatment) Hawkins and Alpert (1989) three responses of CO work conditions: Becoming alienated and cynical Become authoritarian, confrontational, or intimidating Adopt a humans services orientation

the videos.

Preview The crime control enterprise and its workers. Concepts surrounding globalization. Pros and cons of globalization. Impact it can have. WAGE COMpression, job losses, free trade. Immigration, what to do about it, improve immigration policies. MIlirarization of the leasing. Militarizartization of the police can make the job more dangerous . It can lead to a reduction in terms of data. WOMEN. Women hesitant to join police force. Privitazation. Private prisons. You can purchase private stock. Can have profit. Employee pool is not as up to standard. Private parsons. Cheap nonunion labor which leads to affect high staff turnover, employers being apathetic about their job. HAVIONG poor judjement bc no high standards. Law enforcement. OUTlook on it. Federal state and local lvl. Generalizable functioning process. Education in policing. Only 1% full year degree. The more educated, the better equipped to make decisions. Officers having autonomy and freedom. Demographic. Only white. Now minority and women. 70 % in most cases 5 different things to look at. The idea of police brutality. Affirmative action. Historical act. Women and minorities no access to get jobs. Different than quotas. Equal access and opportunity. Qualified and meet qualifications Members of bar and nonbar. Justice of the peace not bar associate usually. Procutors and defense attorney PROSECUTOR MOST powerful actor. If bring charges, if negotiations. Sepecialize in DWI, blah blah Defense attorney is outsider. 6th amendment GUARANTEED> COUNCIL. Effective assistance of council. CORRECTIONS. ROLe ambiguity, caretakers, security, role strain. What they are Difficulties. 80s WAR ON DRUGS. American police forces fire power. Steady deciline inn violent crime. Swat units. Department of defense excess property program. More firepower available. Defense logistics agency 1033 program . SWAT capability. WAR ON TERROR. Prepare for terrorist defense. Department of homeland security. GRANT used for a year or returned. Active police . MISTRUST w police bc of this. 2015 dod transfer of obama. Corecivic. Corrections corporation of america. . TOM beasely. ⅕ in prison. Private prisons twice as many infractions. Lengthen your sentence. Seek occupancy contracts. Fines.

legit chapter 1

The Crime Control Enterprise and Its Workers In his farewell address as president, Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex. The World War II general was concerned that defense policy was being driven by businesses, politicians, and military officials, insulated from public view and thus from accountability. He noted (1961) that until World War II, "the United States had no armaments industry"—other businesses converted to manufacture them as necessary—but having a permanent armaments industry of "vast proportions" (millions of employees and substantial military spending) was new and troubling: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Similar to the military-industrial complex is a criminal justice-industrial complex born from the drastic buildup of the criminal justice system starting in the 1970s, most notably with prisons. While prisons and the criminal justice system have had contracts with businesses for supplies and consultants for much of their history, the nature of these relationships and the amount of money involved reached a critical mass because of the war on crime and drugs. It expanded to include private prison companies traded on the stock exchange and regular Las Vegas-style conventions for businesses selling goods and services to criminal justice officials (Selman and Leighton 2010). The increases in spending from the wars on crime and drugs have created a new type of permanent crime control industry with "grave implications" for criminal justice policy: [T]he United States has developed a prison-industrial complex—a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of the actual need. The prison-industrial complex is not a conspiracy, guiding the nation's criminal-justice policy behind closed doors. It is a confluence of special interests that has given prison construction in the United States a seemingly unstoppable momentum. It is composed of politicians, both liberal and conservative, who have used the fear of crime to gain votes; impoverished rural areas where prisons have become a cornerstone of economic development; private companies that regard the roughly $35 billion [$81 billion in 2012] spent each year on corrections not as a burden on American taxpayers but as a lucrative market; and government officials whose fiefdoms have expanded along with the inmate population. (Schlosser 1998) The criminal justice and military-industrial complexes share more than a common idea. By the mid-1980s, the Cold War against Russia—called the "evil empire" by then-president Reagan—was winding down, and defense firms were looking for new markets to bolster revenue. The Department of Defense had already signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Justice for technology development and commercialization, and companies in the defense industry increasingly became suppliers to local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. The drug war served to fuel the growth of military-style Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams across small and large urban areas. After the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11, the criminal justice complex developed stronger ties with intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Sweeping changes came to law enforcement, court processes, and government surveillance because of both the 2001 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. What has emerged is a security-industrial complex (SIC) linking criminal justice with military and intelligence operations, and expanding criminal justice operations to include greater emphasis on immigration and the war on terror. At the same time, products and technologies for military and intelligence are increasingly used by criminal justice agencies, even when they are not dealing with immigration or terrorism issues. Today, the monies flowing into the military and homeland security infrastructure are at the cutting edge of the digital revolution: computer hacking, mass surveillance, data mining, and risk assessment algorithms. As the American crime control enterprise has attempted to integrate many new criminal justice, intelligence, and security roles, social control has become more systemic compared to the more decentralized patterns of law enforcement and the administration of justice during the previous two centuries. But threats to "our liberties or democratic processes" persist. Consider: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, houses a number of foreign enemy combatants. Although on a military base and thus on American soil, they are in a "legal black hole": subject to indefinite detention without a trial, discovery of evidence, the ability to cross-examine accusers, or any other provisions of the Sixth Amendment. Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted their rights to kill those labeled as enemy combatants, a process that happens without notice to the person being labeled. Even when that person is an American citizen, there is no due process right to notice or to challenge the information that culminates in what may be a death sentence. This power has been used abroad, and neither the current nor previous administrations have claimed or denied the right to kill an American citizen labeled as an enemy combatant who is in the United States. US police departments are increasingly using unarmed drones for surveillance, which can be useful in armed standoffs but becomes a concern when "all the pieces appear to be lining up for the eventual introduction of routine aerial surveillance in American life, a development that would profoundly change the character of public life in the United States" (Rosenwald 2013). Documents leaked by former National Security Administration (NSA) technologist Edward Snowden have revealed widespread and routine surveillance of all Americans through their cell phones and Internet usage. The chief judge of the court supposedly overseeing the NSA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISA Court), "has admitted that the court can't verify what the agency says and thus can't provide full oversight over it" (BloombergView 2013). A secret branch of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been using information from the NSA and other intelligence agencies for fighting ordinary drug crimes. Local law enforcement agencies have either been misled about the origins of the information or "coached to conceal the existence of the program and the source of the information by creating what's called a 'parallel construction', a fake or misleading trail of evidence" (O'Hehir 2013). This limits defendants' rights to challenge information against them and results in false testimony in court, but it is not clear whether there will be a judicial response or what it will be. "Should we be confident that NSA intercepts and foreign-intelligence wiretaps and 'parallel construction' will never be used to build criminal cases against hackers, leakers, Occupy activists, investigative journalists, unfriendly pundits and any other dissidents on the left or the right whom the government decides to persecute?" (O'Hehir 2013). Police are increasingly using a Stingray, which transmits fraudulent credentials to trick cell phones into connecting to it. When operational, police can, without probable cause or a warrant, identify the phone numbers of all devices in a given area; the device has the capability to record phone and text messages, although such usage should theoretically be approved by a court. Little is known about police usage of stingrays because of non-disclosure agreements with the manufacturer, but available data indicates they are used more heavily in poor and minority communities (Joseph 2016). Does data from one investigation get deleted, or does it furnish a list of "pre-suspects" for all future investigations? "Who's to say police aren't running Stingrays constantly in 'hot spot' areas?" (Joseph 2016). What type of oversight should be required for police to fly Stringrays over peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, as has been done in several cities (Norton 2016)? Is this "first into the black community—and then everywhere else"? (Joseph 2016). The conventional view is that the criminal justice system is composed of police, courts, and corrections. While that is not inaccurate, it is still only a partial understanding of the work, mission, problems, issues, and career opportunities related to criminal justice. In addition to providing opportunities for expanded thinking about employment, study, and reading, this chapter serves as a reminder of the challenges to democracy posed by the criminal justice-security complex. These problems are likely to continue into the foreseeable future because the war on terrorism appears to be open-ended and because a renewal of the 2001 Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed within days of the September 11 attacks could provide a license to wage a "war on terror" indefinitely. Budgets, legal uncertainties, and unexpected events make it unclear as to what exactly the mission will become for the twenty-first-century criminal justice worker. However, the first sections below highlight four areas that will have an enduring impact on criminal justice work and workers: globalization and immigration, militarization, privatization and revenue enhancement, and cybercrime and security. Another section provides an overview of criminal justice workers that is focused on law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Globalization and Immigration Globalization refers to the growing interdependency among events, people, and governments around the world that are increasingly connected through trade, expanding communications, transportation, and computer networks. With a globalizing political economy, goods, labor, and money move more freely around the world, a situation that leads to some benefits but also leads to intensified inequality of wealth and income. The chief economist of Wall Street investment bank Morgan Stanley noted, "Billed as the great equalizer between the rich and the poor, globalization has been anything but." Indeed, "the rich are, indeed, getting richer but the rest of the workforce is not" (Roach 2006). Today, globalization emphasizes "free trade" and deregulation as corporations look for locations with the cheapest labor, the least number of laborers, and the fewest environmental and other regulations. Even after the 2009 economic crisis and pressure at the Global Economic Summit from the European Union, China, and India to establish international regulatory agencies, President Obama and many Wall Street banking institutions rejected the idea. Globalization policies can lead not just to inequality between countries but also to inequality within a country because of job losses, stagnating wages, and greater benefits to those at the top (through greater profits because of low wages and fewer regulations) (Faux 2006; Klein 2007; Perkins 2007). In 2015, the richest 1 percent of the global population owned more wealth than the rest of the world combined (Hardoon 2017). At the same time, tens of millions of people succumb annually to famine and preventable diseases. For hundreds of millions of others, life has become a daily preoccupation with obtaining safe water, rudimentary health care, basic education, and sufficient nutrition (Barak 2007). Nations around the world are shrinking their welfare states while governments have been busy deregulating, downsizing, privatizing, contracting out, reducing taxes, and cutting social spending—a constellation of activities often described as neoliberalism. Ultimately, globalization and inequality create expanding opportunities for "legitimate" capitalists as well as criminals because the need for both licit and illicit goods or services grows in tandem (Nordstrom 2007). "Free trade" does not explicitly include the sexual trafficking of women and children, but encouragement of the "free flow" of goods and money also makes it easier to traffic persons, drugs, intellectual property, weapons, and exotic wildlife. It also encourages fraudulent and unfair trade practices in commerce, the laundering of money from illegal activities, the smuggling of illegal immigrants into and out of nations, the dumping of toxic waste and other forms of ecological destruction, the acts of terrorism committed by and against various states, and the behavior of multinationals to move capital and technology to exploit cheap labor (Barak 2001: 66). As crime becomes transnational, crime control must do the same, requiring workers who are fluent in different languages and who have an understanding of other regions of the world where the United States must collaborate with other nations' crime control agencies. When outsourcing and privatization lead to economic restructuring and low-wage work in other countries, some people will legally or illegally immigrate to the United States (Golash-Boza 2016). Research reviews written by the Sentencing Project (Ghandnoosh and Rovner 2017), the American Society of Criminology (n.d.), and conservative Cato institute (Nowrasteh 2015) all agree that the crime rates for immigrant populations are lower than those for people born in the United States. They cite a century worth of research that is quite clear on lower rates of criminality for immigrants. However, processes to criminalize immigrants—"crimmigration"—have been increasing over the last decade: "In the first five and a half years of his presidency, President Obama deported more than two million people—more than the sum total of all people deported before 1997" (Golash-Boza 2016). Immigration accounts for 30 percent of the cases filed by federal prosecutors. Immigrants often are detailed in private prisons that are contracted through ICE rather than the Department of Justice (DOJ). Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows ICE to enter into agreements with state and local police, permitting them to perform immigration law enforcement in addition to the enforcement of state and local laws. Many departments want to resist this process, because they feel it undermines community trust and cooperation, which are essential for policing. In fact, some cities have asserted themselves as "sanctuary cities" that will refuse to turn over illegal immigrants for deportation. Many such immigrants are longtime residents of the United States who have built business and families here. Deportation, often for traffic violations—or even no crime at all—tears families apart and disrupts communities. Criminalizing immigration does little to promote public safety because immigrants overall have a lower crime rate, while it makes immigrants more vulnerable to being victims of a range of crimes and exploitation. If immigrants—both legal and undocumented—are afraid to report crimes against them, others are more likely to commit sexual assaults, thefts, wage theft and labor violations, and other crimes against them. What anti-immigrant policies do not fix are the long backlogs in legal immigration—the single biggest issue related to immigration today. The delays in processing paperwork and cases often extend years or decades, "forcing people who want to follow the rules to make an agonizing choice between intolerable separation from their families or lawbreaking" (New York Times 2009). Nor do these policies protect captured illegal immigrants from the arbitrary cruelties of the detention and deportation system in which due process is limited at best and unacceptable risks of sickness, injury, and death at worst prevail as a condition of imprisonment (Golash-Boza 2016). Far better, critics argue, would be for government to redouble its efforts to enforce the minimum wage, to grant the right of immigrants to organize, and to provide health and safety protections. Such policies would have the effect of reducing the incentive to hire the undocumented while raising conditions for all workers. Militarization Although law enforcement has always been a quasi-military organization, when Sir Robert Peel created what is considered as the first modern police force in 1829 in London, his "principles of policing emphasized crime prevention, public approval, willing cooperation of the public, and a minimal use of physical force" (Bickel 2013). In the United States, the civil unrest of the 1960s led to the modern escalation in the militarization of the American police (Strauss 2007). Militarism is "a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that stress the use of force and threat of violence as the most appropriate means to solve problems. It glorifies the use of military power, hardware, operations, and technology as its primary problem-solving tools" (Kraska 2007: 164-65). Accordingly, the militarization of law enforcement includes the processes of arming, organizing, planning, training for, and sometimes pursuing violent conflict. Peter Kraska argues that assessing the degree to which crime control in general and police behavior in particular have become militarized hinges on the clarity of its concepts. He has also argued that the "similarities between a police paramilitary drug raid [at home in the United States] and the latest Iraq war" represent "the cultural, organizational, operational, and material blurring of the line between war and law enforcement, on the one hand, and between U.S. military and civilian criminal justice, on the other hand" (Kraska 2007: 166). Certainly, police departments across the United States have experienced dramatic growth and use of specialized units such as SWAT teams and Special Response Teams (SRTs) that are based on similar units within the military. In 1983, only 13 percent of towns with populations between twenty-five thousand and fifty thousand had a SWAT team, but now almost 90 percent do (Balko 2013; Economist 2014). Further, these units were once thought of primarily as reactive units for handling hostage standoffs and other unique situations, but in an age of zero-tolerance policing, these units have become proactive forces, specifically trained to execute police raids in poor, urban communities as a result of the war on drugs. But SWAT teams are also used to break up poker games and wagering on college football games ("illegal gambling"), underage drinking in bars, suspected cockfighting, and "Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission" (Balko 2013; Economist 2014). In the early 1980s, these police paramilitary raids and "forced investigatory searches using the military special operations model, employed during hostage rescues, was almost unheard of and would have been considered an extreme and unacceptable police tactic. Today, it defines the bulk of activity most police paramilitary teams are engaged in, and this is true of both very small and large police departments" (Kraska 2007: 163). Military personnel train and assist these specialized units, and veterans of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan find they can become consultants to train local SWAT teams. These practices have been an economic boon to suppliers of these paramilitary law enforcement teams (in weaponry, body armor, training, jails, and vehicles, for example), who have been fortified by the increased arrest rates and subsequent incarceration rates of poor minorities who are convicted of nonviolent drug crimes. The militarization of policing has been accompanied by an escalation in violence, lethal, and otherwise. No-knock or quick-knock paramilitary raids—used to collect evidence, such as drugs, guns, or money—naturally surprise citizens and put both citizens and police in potentially volatile situations. Dealing with these potentially dangerous situations justifies further extraordinary measures: These include conducting searches during the predawn hours, usually in black military battle-dress uniforms, full body armor, ninja-style hoods, and an array of enhanced listening and seeing devices—sort of a twenty-first century cyborg style. It also includes a rapid entry into the residence using specialized battering rams or sometimes entry explosives, the use of flash-bang grenades designed to temporarily disorient the occupants, a frantic room-by-room search of the entire residence where all occupants are expected to immediately comply with officers' screamed demands to get into the prone position. If a citizen does not comply immediately because he or she is confused, dazed, obstinate, or doesn't know that the people raiding the house are police, more extreme measures are taken. Finally, the police ransack the entire residence for contraband. (Kraska 2007: 167) The adverse effects from these military-style raids on American citizens include situations such as the deaths of Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in 1993; the killing of children; unintentional (but still lethal) gun discharges; raids on the wrong house; and college students shot for violations of marijuana laws because of quick entry. The commonality of these types of tragedies is not known because data on SWAT teams gone wrong are not officially recorded. When the militarization of the police is dramatized and glamorized in popular culture, community policing that shares the values of Sir Robert Peel is marginalized: if after hiring officers in the spirit of adventure, who have been exposed to action oriented police dramas since their youth, and sending them to an academy patterned after a military boot camp, then dressing them in black battle dress uniforms and turning them loose in a subculture steeped in an "us versus them" outlook toward those they serve and protect, while prosecuting the war on crime, war on drugs, and now a war on terrorism—is there any realistic hope of institutionalizing community policing as an operational philosophy? (Bickel 2013) Privatization and Revenue Collection Privatization refers to the process of government outsourcing certain tasks to for-profit businesses. While prisons have frequently contracted out food service and health care ("nominal privatization"), privatization escalated in the 1980s with the creation of businesses that built, owned, and managed prisons ("operational privatization"). A number of private prison companies later had initial public offerings in which they raised money by selling shares to the public and became traded on the stock exchange (Selman and Leighton 2010). Indeed, in the opening of his book The Perpetual Prisoner Machine, Joel Dyer comments on the sign hanging outside the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center that reads, "Yesterday's closing stock price." The stock price is for the prison's owner, then named the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). To Dyer, what the sign means "is that anyone—anyone with money, that is—can now profit from crime" (2000: 10). As the industry has grown, so too have concerns about the number of (poor, black) "bodies destined for profitable punishment" (Leighton and Selman 2012). The movement to private prisons started as a way to offset the high correctional expenses resulting from the incarceration binge in the United States. With the expansion of prisons, jails, parole, and probation, the number of companies involved in delivering services has expanded, and they have diversified into providing more services (see chapter 10). For example, the privatization of punishment is not solely the construction and management of prisons but also includes housing illegal immigrants (including families), juvenile offenders, and the mentally ill; contracting to provide health care and food services for incarcerated persons; contracting to provide community-based forms of surveillance, including electronic monitoring; and, most recently, contracting for reentry services for the formerly incarcerated (Selman and Leighton 2010). The reality of contemporary corrections is that it includes several multinational prison businesses with billions of dollars' worth of stock and billions more in debt to Wall Street banks. The money from investors and banks allowed private businesses to build many facilities and thus continue the unprecedented expansion of the prison population—an example of understanding the political economy of punishment, or how politics and economics exert influence on punishment more significantly than on arguments about retribution, deterrence, and sentencing guidelines (Rusche and Kirchheimer [1939] 1968). Killingbeck summarizes how at each stage of history, the reliance on imprisonment in its different forms was tied up in a political economy of punishment: When society was manual-labor based and dependent on the production of goods and cheap labor, imprisonment included prison labor. It was not until the use of prison labor was no longer economically viable and politically advantageous that reforms were instituted. . . . With the advent of new technologies that reduced the demand for manual labor, imprisonment served to warehouse the surplus labor supply. As capitalism became more service oriented, imprisonment became a service to be provided. As capitalism becomes a combination of technology, service and information, so too does punishment, in the forms of electronic monitoring and GPS tracking. (2005: 169, emphasis in the original) With outsourcing and globalization, wages of most workers go down while those at the top do much better, leading to an overall situation of greater inequality. In private prisons, guards tend to be paid less and have fewer benefits than government workers, and the antiunion stance of private prisons makes it difficult for workers to substantially improve work conditions. Median earnings in 2010 for all correctional officers and jailers were $42,820, but private prisons paid $37,570 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016a). Meanwhile, the chief executive officer (CEO) of a private prison company makes more than the average head of a department of corrections who manages a substantially higher number of inmates. For example, the CEO of CoreCivic (formerly CCA) has a total compensation of several million dollars a year, as does the CEO of GEO Group. The managers of state departments of corrections of a similar size make less than $200,000 (Selman and Leighton 2010). The end result is staff turnover, apathy, and poor judgment—which can combine to precipitate riots, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, or inmate abuse (Bauer 2016; Carceral 2005). As more companies generate revenue from corrections, there is more potential for misplaced power in the multibillion-dollar prison-industrial complex to distort sentencing and criminal justice (and mental health and immigration) policy: the interests of corporate shareholders become increasingly important, causing increased corporate lobbying and campaign donations, while public safety and public accountability become less relevant. Basic free-market principles dictate that companies with shares traded on a stock exchange have a duty to make money for their shareholders. Thus, businesses involved in incarceration have no duty to balance their desire for ever-increasing profits with the larger public good that would come from, say, crime-prevention funding or money for schools. Indeed, sentencing reform and declining crime rates are "risk factors." The expansion of criminal justice fines and fees should lead to a reconsideration of the traditional view of the criminal justice-industrial complex, in which the private sector extracted money from government. But by 2011, the Conference of State Court Administrators issued a policy paper Courts Are Not Revenue Centers, where they state that the use and structure of fees "has recast the role of the court as a collection agency for executive branch services" (2011: 9). The process frequently involves aggressive policing of submisdemeanor infractions and issuing citations that carry a fine plus a court fee. People who cannot afford to pay often do not show up, whereupon the court issues an arrest warrant, which carries another fee (Reiman and Leighton 2017: 123 and 205). In response to the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, a DOJ investigation found that the city finance director and city manager asked the police chief to aggressively issue citations so that revenue from court fees could be increased because of other budget shortfalls. Management carefully monitored police "productivity" (number of citations issued), so DOJ found that "many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson's predominantly African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue" (2015: 2). It found further that the "emphasis on revenue . . . has also shaped its municipal court." The court works to "advance the City's financial interests" and "does not act as a neutral arbiter of the law or a check on unlawful police conduct" (2015: 3). These practices especially harm the poorer residents, because "minor offenses can generate crippling debts, [and] result in jail time because of an inability to pay" (2015: 4). Unfortunately, the problem is not confined to Ferguson, and the government also collects revenue in hidden ways from businesses that engage in unfair practices. In one Southern jurisdiction, for example, being released on bail required wearing an electronic monitoring device that cost $300 a month, and while the fee was payable directly to the monitoring company, the company shared part of its revenue with the government. Trial can take a year or more, so fees pile up and strain the budgets of already poor households. The failure to pay means a return to jail, so "people are pleading guilty because it's cheaper to be on probation than it is to be on electronic monitoring" (Markowitz 2015). Thus, government and the criminal justice system itself are part of the problem of distorting policy and public safety in the name of revenue. By engaging in predatory finance and abusive collection practices, the criminal justice system has become a key player in the revenue-generating aspect of the criminal justice-industrial complex. Cybercrime/Security The current world, separated by a defined geographical border, with government agents at border crossings and national laws, does not fit with how cybercrime functions. People in one country use computers in many countries to attack targets all over the world, then launder money through still other countries. This situation makes it challenging for jurisdictions where people are victimized by cybercrime to investigate and prosecute, even if they had the tools to do so. But the scale of losses—money, information, and the ability to disrupt critical infrastructure—makes it too large to ignore. Cybercrime was once "an obscure technical issue" but "cybersecurity has slowly gained prominence in recent years as digital crooks and cyber spies breached major companies like Target and Sony, as well as federal agencies like the Office of Personnel Management, which houses sensitive background check forms" (Geller 2017). The "Stuxnet" computer virus, widely attributed to United States and Israel, ushered in a new era of cybercrime (Arthur 2013). Until that point, cybercrime and terrorism were limited to attacking and potentially damaging other computers, but Stuxnet attacked industrial controls so that Iran's centrifuges to refine uranium would operate in a way that broke the machines. The objective of crippling Iran's nuclear power program was achieved, but it ushered in a model of cyber attacks on any computer-controlled critical (and not so critical) infrastructure, much of which is also connected to the Internet: nuclear and other power plants, the electric grid, traffic lights, emergency response systems, water processing, elevators, cell towers, hospitals, the stock exchange, gas pipelines, cars, billboards, subways, implantable medical devices, voter registration and sensitive political information, and an increasing number of devices upon which people have come to depend. Leveraging a series of hacks can easily result in chaos in a city or across a nation (K. Johnson 2016). President Obama brought some of the functions and responsibilities for the nation's digital security to the White House when he announced in late May 2009 that he would appoint "the nation's first cyber security czar to help protect the nation's telecom infrastructure and information systems that have grown so crucial to industry, the military and individual citizens" (Denver Business Journal 2009). The Pentagon also has a "Cyber-Command" and the Secret Service, which developed high-tech laboratories to investigate counterfeit currency, took on the investigation of credit card breaches and other attacks on financial infrastructure. As cybercrime has become more widespread, it has also become more professional. While hackers living in their parents' basement are still part of the scene, "80 percent of hackers are now working with or as part of an organized crime group" (Goodman 2016: 222). Those who develop malware (malicious software) are specialized in that business and sell or rent their product for others to distribute. The malware developers allow their customers "to file bug reports, propose and vote on new features for upcoming versions of the software, and even submit and track trouble tickets" (Goodman 2016: 233). In many other ways, organized cybercrime mimics the organization and business models of Silicon Valley technology companies. Cybercrime also involves an expanding assortment of "virtual dark markets"—underground sites that auction or sell hard drugs, child pornography, fraudulent passports, counterfeit dollars, military weapons, and stolen identities. Technological developments help both law enforcement and cybercriminals. The Dark Web, a place where the NSA has an especially difficult time surveilling, has made commerce in these illicit goods and services possible. The Deep Web is "the collection of all the websites and databases that search engines like Google don't or can't index, which in terms of the sheer volume of information is many times larger than the Web as we know it." The Dark Web is the place within the Deep Web "that's distinguished by that increasingly rare commodity: complete anonymity." Although most people do not browse the Dark Web, "the software you need to access it is free and takes less than three minutes to download and install" (Grossman and Newton-Small 2013: 28). The Dark Web has thus become a tool for criminals, political dissidents, hackers, intelligence agents, law enforcement, and any who need or want to conduct their online affairs in private. Thus, some prosecutors and government agencies regard the Deep Web as a potential nightmare, an electronic haven for thieves, human traffickers, and peddlers of state secrets. Dark Web markets for criminal goods and services resemble eBay, as shown in the Frequently Asked Questions section of Alpha Bay—see figure 1.1—currently one of the larger online dark markets. The Deep Web also has its own digital payment system and a currency called Bitcoin that may be used for both legitimate and illegitimate dealings. Bitcoin has no physical form, and its worth is "determined by supply and demand and is valuable only insofar as individuals and companies have agreed to trade it" (Grossman and Newton-Small 2013: 29). A government does not back this currency; it is completely decentralized, and users can transfer bitcoins from one digital wallet to another without banks brokering the transactions or imposing fees. In short, bitcoins are basically cash (anonymous transactions) for the Internet. Because of the workings of encryption and cryptography, they are virtually anonymous and extremely difficult to counterfeit. FIG. 1.1 FAQ from Dark Web Marketplace AlphaBay Note: In July 2017, AlphaBay went offline in what seems to be a law-enforcement action that closed the $600,000 to $800,000 a day business. But each time a big dark market gets taken down, something grows back bigger: "There's a demand it's just a question of who's going to fulfill the supply" (A. Greenberg 2017). Criminal Justice Workers This chapter opened by introducing the larger criminal justice-security complex to help readers think about the larger contexts that shape criminal justice. However, there are too many occupations and work possibilities to meaningfully discuss in part of a chapter, so this section focuses on law enforcement, judicial workers, and corrections. For each of those areas, we provide an overview of the occupation and those who do the job. Table 1.1 provides a more expansive list of careers within the more traditional understandings of what the criminal justice system is. Table 1.2 provides a breakdown of criminal justice system expenditures, including the payroll for employees and the number of workers. TABLE 1.1 Careers in Criminal Justice Law Enforcement/ Security Courts/Legal Corrections/Rehabilitation Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent Arbitrator Activity therapist Border patrol agent Attorney general Business manager Campus police officer Bailiff Case manager Computer security advisor Clerk of court Chaplain Computer crime investigator Court reporter Chemical dependency worker Crime prevention specialist Jury coordinator Child care worker Crime scene processor (evidence collection) Juvenile magistrate Classification officer Criminal investigator Law clerk Clinical social worker Criminal profiler Law librarian Community liaison officer Customs officer Legal researcher Correctional officer Deputy U.S. investigator Mediator Fugitive apprehension officer Drug enforcement officer Paralegal Home detention supervisor Environmental protection agent Public defender Job placement officer FBI special agent Public information officer Juvenile detention officer Fingerprint technician Specialty court (drug, veteran, domestic violence, etc.) worker Juvenile probation officer Forensic scientist Trial court administrator Medical doctor Highway patrol officer Victim advocate Mental health clinician Immigration and customs officer Nurse Inspector general's office investigator Parole/probation officer Insurance fraud investigator Postal inspector Laboratory technician Presentence inspector Loss prevention officer Prison industries supervisor Military police officer Programmer/analyst Park ranger Psychologist Police administrator Rehabilitation counselor Police dispatcher Residence supervisor Police officer Secret service agent Polygraphy examiner Sex offender therapist Private investigator Social worker teacher Private security officer Vocational instructor Researcher Warden/superintendent State trooper Youth service worker The totals in the previous paragraph do not include expenditures or workers in private security, private detection, or other related security occupations not funded by government. Jobs within the criminal justice enterprise are diverse, and different occupations have unique dynamics with respect to class, race, and gender. What follows are the roles and functions of the principal occupations in the three primary areas of criminal justice practice—law enforcement, courts, and corrections—as well as other characteristics, such as the number of workers, working conditions, educational requirements, and professional salaries as available. TABLE 1.2 Criminal Justice Expenditures, Payroll, and Employees, 2012 Total Expenditures (in Billions of US$) Employee Payroll (in Billions of US$) Total Employees Source: BJS. 2015. "Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2012—Preliminary." NCJ 248628, tables 1 and 2. Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Payroll as of March 2012. Criminal Justice system total 265.2 12.0 2,425,001 Police 126.4 6.3 1,183,614 Judicial and legal 57.9 2.5 491,979 Corrections 80.8 3.2 749,418 Law Enforcement Workers According to the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data, the United States had about fifteen thousand public law enforcement agencies and about one million full-time personnel, including about 725,000 sworn personnel (with the power to arrest) at the local and state levels of government (BJS 2015a: 2). Another 84,500 employees were part-time, including almost forty thousand sworn personnel. An additional 1,700 agencies served a special geographic region—public schools, universities, parks, forests, airports, mass transit, and so on—and employed another ninety thousand people full-time, including fifty-seven thousand sworn officers. While this section does try to paint a general picture, Bohm and Haley (2005: 160) point out that virtually no two police agencies in the United States are structured alike or function in the same way. Police officers themselves are young and old; well trained and ill prepared; rural, urban, and suburban; generalists and specialists; paid and volunteer; and public and private. These differences lead to at least three generalizations about law enforcement in the United States: The quality of police services varies greatly across the nation. There is no consensus on professional standards for police personnel, equipment, and practices. Expenditures for police services vary greatly among communities. Starting salaries and median annual earnings for police and patrol officers in 2016 across local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies ranged from $55,000 to $69,200, although pay for police at colleges and schools was less (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016a). Salaries for first-line supervisors averaged $119,540 for the federal government down to $85,830 for local agencies (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016b). Educationally, only 1 percent of municipal police departments required new recruits to have a four-year college degree, and only 9 percent required at least a two-year degree in 2003. A high school diploma or higher educational achievement was required by 81 percent of local police agencies across the nation (BJS 2006a: 9). Local law enforcement activities constitute the bulk of police work and are carried out primarily by municipal (i.e., city, township) police departments that typically (94 percent) employ fewer than fifty sworn officers. The larger the police agency, the more likely it is to employ women and minority officers. While white males are still highly overrepresented, the overrepresentation has been slowly declining. From the early 1900s until 1972, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began to assist women police officers in obtaining equal employment status with male officers, policewomen were responsible for protection and crime prevention work with women and juveniles, particularly girls. Today, women engage in virtually all of the duties that men do, but account for only 11.6 percent of all officers (UCR 2015: table 74). Women make up almost 10 percent of first-line supervisors and 3 percent of police chiefs (BJS 2015b). Of full-time sworn personnel, 12 percent were Hispanic, 12 percent were African American, 2 percent were Asian American, and 1 percent was Native American (BJS 2015b: 5b) The BJS does not release data broken down by race and sex, so the representation of minority women in policing is not known. Like most municipal police departments, most sheriffs' departments are small. In addition to enforcing the criminal and traffic laws of the state, sworn and not sworn personnel of sheriffs' departments perform functions that range from investigating crimes to supervision of jailed inmates. Unlike municipal police departments, sheriffs are directly elected, so they operate in the context of partisan politics and have the authority to appoint special deputies and to award jobs based on political support. Generally, they have a freer hand in running their agencies than police chiefs, who usually serve as mayoral appointees, but sheriffs are also subject more to local politics than they are to measures of effectiveness and professionalism. In making sense of the statistics and the overall environment, a number of points are important. First, all women and racial minorities interested in working in most areas of criminal justice share the challenge of entering overwhelmingly white male work environments, with women of color being doubly disadvantaged. Second, sexual and racial discrimination acts to preserve some criminal justice professions, especially law enforcement, as disproportionately white male domains. These forms of harassment can be separate and unrelated or combined, for example, in the form of "racialized sexual harassment" that serves to keep some women of color from entering, advancing, or remaining in a predominantly white male occupation. In general, women of any color and minority males are forced to consider the world through the eyes of the white male cop. Both of these groups, by definition, lack access to the "old boy" networks in law enforcement, a situation that can be conducive to a catch-22 state of affairs, especially for women. On the one hand, if men of color or women in general do not socialize (either by choice or exclusion), they risk not learning information related to their job or promotion opportunities and may be labeled as aloof or "cold." On the other hand, if women in particular socialize with male colleagues, they may be perceived to be sexually available, which reflects negatively on women's professionalism (Belknap 2007). Gay and lesbian officers, white or of color, working in this male-dominated field experience a sense of marginalization and harassment at least as severe as other minority groups on the job. And "since officers distrust the public and put an immense amount of trust in their fellow officers, being shunned by your colleagues can have potentially dangerous, even life-threatening results" (Buist and Lemming 2016: 57). Third, women of color have additional barriers even though some people believe that they receive a double benefit because of their underrepresentation as both women and people of color. In reality, minority women are often forced to choose between a race and a sex discrimination claim. They are thus forced to choose—or the court decides for them—whether they will be compared against white women or minority men. But in either case, the double discrimination is not fully accounted for. Fourth, racial and/or ethnic minorities, blacks and Hispanics in particular, not only have to deal with being forced to fit in with and having their work devalued by their white peers, but they also often, especially in impoverished ethnic communities, find that their community identities or loyalties are subject to questioning. On the one hand, they must prove to their communities that they are not "sellouts." On the other hand, they need to demonstrate to white officers that they are strictly enforcing the laws against their community and behaving toward minorities as the white officers are. This is especially pronounced with Hispanic officers, who are not just employed by police departments but also make up a high percentage of immigration agents (Álvarez and Urbina 2015). In cases of police brutality or when excessive force is used by black police officers against those in the black community, some see it as evidence that the incident was about brutality and excessive force, not race. But people should not jump to that conclusion without considering that black officers are capable of holding prejudices about black offenders. Ronald Hampton of the National Black Police Association observed, "Success [in a department] is defined in white male terms. So these guys internalize the racist, oppressive culture of the police department in order to succeed" (Ripley 2000). But instead of viewing black and Latino police officers who engage in police brutality against black and Latino criminal suspects as a symptom of a larger problem, which is overreliance on militarized policing in poor and minority communities, police brutality against the most powerless people in society is sometimes viewed as a normative behavior because both black and Latino officers also participate in it. Finally, undercover work requires the involvement of detectives whose brown skin permits them to blend into certain neighborhoods, but they sometimes fear that a white officer will accidentally shoot them (Winerip 2000). Accidental shootings of minorities by white cops are not uncommon and are attended by numerous studies that suggest that brown faces are more threatening than white faces: "There is overwhelming evidence that young, black men are stereotyped as violent, criminal and dangerous. Indeed research suggests that black men are associated with threat both implicitly as well as explicitly" (Trawalter et al. 2008: 1322). For all the problems, there are some who say that sexism and racism in the workplace is declining. However, affirmative action myths still abound, such as the myth that police or corrections departments must meet quotas in hiring women and minority men, regardless of whether or not they are qualified. For example, scrutiny of the text of the original Affirmative Action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, specifically prohibits hiring of unqualified people to fill positions in occupations and requires in section 202(2) that "the contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color or national origin." So, in reality, affirmative action programs were designed to determine the percentage of qualified women and minorities available to an organization (such as a police department) and to set flexible goals to be reached in good faith. The courts, in short, imposed quotas only in the case of blatant discrimination against clearly qualified minorities, and this system disappeared after the Supreme Court decided quotas were unconstitutional when used in college admission in University of California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265 [1978]). (Subsequent Court decisions have allowed for race to be used in admissions decisions when narrowly tailored to help achieve a diverse student body, but not in a way that automatically grants minorities a certain number of points toward admission.) In conclusion, there are significant limitations on essentializing gender relations or police-race relations in an occupational setting. "Essentializing" is the idea that "all women are oppressed by all men in the same ways or that there is one unified experience of dominance experienced by women" (Buist and Lemming 2016). Statements such as "all white officers engage in racial profiling" or generalizations about the behavior of female officers are too simplistic. The social reality is that people are influenced not only by their personal attitudes and experiences but also by the context in which they live and work. Whites are capable of recognizing the problems of racial profiling and brutality, and racial and ethnic minority officers are charged with the responsibility of not falling victim to them. But the contributions of women and minorities and women who are minorities should be both valued and incorporated into the ways that law enforcement agencies operate today so as to eliminate racism, minimize discrimination, and maximize fairness in the administration of justice. Certainly, it is useless to continue to expect minorities and women to adapt to the white majority without reciprocal efforts being made on the part of the white majority to include them, especially since globalization has ramped up. To suggest otherwise is to diminish everyone by treating people as if their actions are solely dictated by their racial categorization rather than by a variety of individual, occupational, organizational, situational, and other contexts. However, this should not mask some underlying dynamics of privilege, because when it comes to harassment based on gender, sexual orientation, or race/ethnicity in law enforcement, women, gays and lesbians, and people of color each still experience the status of "outsider." They are all subjects of police subordination in an occupation that punishes them for entering male-only or white-male-only domains. Judicial Workers Both the expenditures and the number of judicial workers involved in criminal tribunals, from the charging to the sentencing stages, are considerably smaller than the number of dollars spent on or workers involved in law enforcement. Comparatively, law enforcement workers are essentially made up of professional persons with and without college degrees. Similarly, judicial workers can be divided up into two distinctively educated workers whose professional class also varies from working to upper-middle class. First, there are the members of the legal bar—attorneys and judges—who have overwhelmingly graduated from a four-year college or university as well as a three-year law school, passed a state bar examination, and been certified to practice law. The average annual salary for assistant prosecutors ranged "from $33,460 for entry-level assistant prosecutors in part-time offices to $108,434 for assistant prosecutors with 6 or more years of experience in offices serving jurisdictions of 1 million or more residents" (BJS 2011: 2). Chief prosecutors had an average annual salary of $98,000 and a range from $45,000 for part-time offices to $165,700 for the largest offices. For states, the median salary for judges in 2012 ranged from about $132,500 for a general trial court up to a median of almost $147,000 for the highest court (Sourcebook: table 1.90.2012). However, salaries varied widely by state, so general-level judges in Mississippi made about $104,200 while their counterparts in Illinois made $180,800. The Sourcebook does not provide any data on public defender salaries. It should also be pointed out that the share of the nation's lawyers who are minorities and women, which had been growing slowly but steadily for years, fell in 2010 for the first time since the National Association for Law Placement began keeping statistics in 1993. Not only did the deep economic recession lead businesses to make diversity programs less of a priority, but a growing number of states—including Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—also moved to ban race-based affirmative action in recent years. These states joined California, Florida, and Washington, which had already banned affirmative action back in the 1990s (Schwartz and Cooper 2013). Table 1.3 reports on the diversity of judges appointed to U.S. district courts and to the U.S. courts of appeals by the past five presidents. An important criterion for appointment to a federal judgeship is having served as a clerk to a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and this issue is explored in box 1.1. TABLE 1.3 Demographic Information of Federal Judicial Confirmations by the Past Five Presidents Obama Bush II Clinton Bush I Reagan Source: Alliance for Justice, Judicial Selection Snapshot (June 5, 2017), http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ Judicial_Selection_Snapshot.pdf. For additional detail, see Stubbs (2016). Note: President Trump has an increasing number of judicial nominations pending, and at the time of publication he had a nigh number confirmed, but these have not been included in this table. Male 58% 78% 71% 81% 92% Female 42% 22% 29% 19% 9% White 64% 82% 75% 89% 94% African American 19% 7% 16% 7% 2% Hispanic 11% 9% 7% 4% 4% Asian Pacific American 6% 1% 1% 0% 0.5% Native American 0.3% 0% 0.2% 0% 0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% Openly GLBT 11 0 1 0 0 People with disabilities 0 2 3 1 1 TOTAL CONFIRMED JUDGES 329 327 378 193 383 BOX 1.1 The Lack of Diversity among Supreme Court Clerks Federal laws barring workplace discrimination do not cover the U.S. Supreme Court. The lack of diversity among law clerks reflects this omission in the law as it raises the question of "supreme hypocrisy." For example, between his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1972 and the beginning of 1999, former chief justice William Rehnquist had eighty-two law clerks. During that time, he had only one Hispanic clerk and only eleven women clerks. Not once did he hire a black clerk. Overall, only 1.2 percent of his clerks had been members of minority groups. The track record of his colleagues had not been much better. Of the 428 law clerks hired during the respective terms of the current justices, only seven were black, five were Hispanic, eighteen were Asian American, and not a single one was Native American. Despite the fact that over 40 percent of law school graduates in the 1990s were women, they made up only one-quarter of all clerks hired by current justices. These figures prompted Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) to conclude: "If the court were a Fortune 500 company, the statistics alone would demonstrate illegal discrimination." In an article, "Does the Supreme Court Need Affirmative Action for Its Own Staff?," Meeks (1999: 24) criticized the Supreme Court's hiring practices. He reasoned that becoming a clerk is a stepping-stone to other legal positions, including that of a Supreme Court justice. Thus, the hiring practices of the highest court in the land create a structural barrier to obtaining those positions. Moreover, Supreme Court law clerks wield considerable power, playing an extremely influential role in the court's functioning. As Meeks writes, "Clerks have the ear of the justices they serve. They have input on which cases the justices choose to consider. They write the initial drafts of most decisions. The Supreme Court's decisions are the law of the land and thus affect lives, determine how government resources are allocated, [and] force legislatures to reformulate public policy choices." In other words, the influence clerks have on both the cases heard and the opinions the court renders should not be underestimated. For example, recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed opportunities for people of color as a result of limiting or ruling unconstitutional critical affirmative action programs or by diluting the application of the Voting Rights Act. The fact that clerks preview and review these cases means that they have had an impact on rulings involving civil rights, access to education, workplace discrimination, religious freedom, voting, welfare reform, immigrant rights, school desegregation, sexual harassment, police brutality, and death penalty appeals. Many of these cases have a disproportionate impact on minorities or women, so it is conspicuous that minorities and women did not have any influence over the preview or review of these cases. Diversity in the background (as well as the foreground) would not only provide a more well-rounded approach to dispensing justice in an increasingly diverse nation, but it would also go a long way toward displaying the image of color-blind justice in an era that lays claim to such. Court observers note that virtually all the Supreme Court clerks are chosen from clerks for the U.S. courts of appeals. Thus, the lack of diversity of judges in the courts of appeals influences the pool of clerks for the Supreme Court. While the data do not allow for the analysis of intersections, the clear implication is that judgeships are very much male and white. To the extent that judges seek clerks they are comfortable with because the clerks are "like themselves," judges re-create the pattern set by the white, male presidents who appointed them. In short, without a more balanced or diversified group of clerks, there is an obvious loss of valuable counterweight to the established court's largely majoritarian tendencies (Benson 2007). With the election of Barack Obama, the first biracial president, some of these patterns started to change. His first appointment to the Supreme Court was Sonia Sotomayor, the court's third woman and first Hispanic woman. But as of 2014, whites made up 74 percent and men made up 67 percent of federal district court judges (National Women's Law Center 2016) Having diverse clerks is thus important because clerks help to provide justices with a broader, more rounded, and varied perspective on critical issues. Only by setting a proactive example of inclusion can the Supreme Court fulfill the ideal of justice that it purports to protect. Indeed, the same argument, more or less, can be applied to all careers associated with the administration of justice in the United States. Second, there are the nonlawyers, primarily bailiffs and stenographers but also including the much less frequently occurring occupations of victim-witness or domestic violence advocates. With the exception of bailiffs, the other nonlawyers (especially stenographers) are primarily women and white. The educational backgrounds of these nonlawyers vary greatly, from those with a high school diploma or GED to those with undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. These judicial workers' annual incomes place them in the working and middle classes. For example, the average annual 2016 salary for paralegals and legal assistants was $49,500, court reporters earned $51,320, and law clerks earned $51,760 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016b). The rest of this discussion on judicial workers focuses on the three key actors in the criminal court process: the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge. These positions influence some of the direct actions taken by police and correctional personnel in the name of crime control, and they also indirectly influence some behavior of general citizens as they conform to the "rule of law." Despite the relative power of these legal actors, they are still captives of a legal order and rigid judicial processes that are, for the most part, well beyond their control. Prosecutors Violations of federal law are prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department, headed by the U.S. attorney general and staffed by ninety-three U.S. attorneys (one assigned to each of the federal district court jurisdictions), all nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Within states, district attorneys are generally employed by a county to prosecute violations of state laws. Most chief prosecutors for each county are elected, and they select their assistant or deputy prosecutors who carry out the day-to-day work of the prosecutor's office in all but the small and rural offices. Since most crimes violate state law, these offices receive most of the attention in this section. The criminal justice system contains about 2,300 prosecutors' offices, employing more than seventy-eight thousand attorneys, investigators, victim advocates, and support staff (BJS 2011: table 1). In 2007, the last year there was a survey of prosecutors, the budget for state prosecutors was about $6 billion (BJS 2011: 1), with the federal government spending more than an additional $3 billion. In contrast to television crime drama centering on serious criminal cases argued before a jury, the BJS notes that felony cases decided by juries "were rare across state prosecutors' offices, accounting for an average of 3% of all felony case dispositions" (2011: 2). This underscores the preference of judicial players for the plea-bargaining system (DeFrances 2002). The real role of prosecutors and defense attorneys, then, has become that of a private negotiator rather than an advocate in a trial. Disposing of more cases via plea bargains, however, may be unwise since the Bill of Rights authorizes jury trials as a necessary part of due process. In short, the right of citizens to be judged by a jury of their peers is one of the essential components of due process; but overreliance on plea-bargaining may have usurped that right as a matter of convenience and economy. Depending on the state, the prosecutor may be called the district attorney, the county attorney, the state's attorney, or several other variations. Whatever the name, the prosecutor is the most powerful actor in the administration of justice. Not only do prosecutors conduct the final screening of each person arrested for a criminal offense, and therefore decide whether to pursue criminal charges, but in most jurisdictions they also have unreviewable discretion in deciding whether to charge a person with a crime and whether to prosecute the case. In other words, regardless of the amount (or lack) of incriminating evidence, and without having to provide any reason to anyone, prosecutors have the authority to charge or not to charge a person with a crime and to prosecute or not prosecute the case (Bohm and Haley 2005: 278). Importantly, a study of "known wrongful convictions involving African American men that occurred since 1970," which had a sample of 343 individuals, reported that prosecutorial misconduct was a factor in 36.2 percent of the wrongful murder convictions in the study and 15 percent of the rape and sexual assault cases (Free and Ruesink 2012). Overall, they concluded, "the lack of diversity among actors in the criminal justice system makes it easier for nonwhites to be processed through the system without the necessary safeguards to minimize the probability of a wrongful conviction" (2012: 196). Like all attorneys, prosecutors are officers of the court. In addition, although police typically recommend that a suspect be charged with a crime, the final decision rests with the prosecutor. To charge or not to charge and what to charge are all decisions within prosecutorial discretion, which is what gives prosecutors their formidable power. The only check on the power of the prosecutor's arsenal of legal weapons are the "rules of discovery" mandating that a prosecutor provide defense counsel with any exculpatory (favorable) evidence on behalf of his or her client. Once the decision to prosecute has been made, prosecutors are then involved in virtually all stages of criminal adjudication, including whether to plea-bargain a case (and the negotiated punishment to be doled out) or take it to trial, the trial itself, and the sentencing phase as well. Other duties, depending on jurisdiction, that add to the power of prosecutors are recommending whether a person should receive bail and/or the amount, acting as legal advisers to other local governmental agencies, and managing a legal and political bureaucracy. With few exceptions, partisan politics plays a controlling role in the recruitment of prosecutors, both county and federal. For attorneys with any political aspirations or ambitions, choosing to work as a district attorney is a wise decision. As a political office engaged in the "war on crime," the only office to rank higher for those with political desires is the mayor's. In short, it's not the money but the power, status, and political potential that attracts persons to prosecutors' offices, often cementing their allegiances to the political status quo and state-legal apparatuses in the process (Jacob [1973] 1980). Breakdowns of prosecuting attorneys by gender and/or race/ethnicity were not available. Historically, women, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities have been highly underrepresented. Although there are certainly more women prosecutors today compared to three decades ago (when there were virtually none), the presence of persons of color is still statistically marginal. In other words, the cultural gap between the majority of white, middle-class prosecutors and the overwhelmingly indigent majority of defendants, nonwhite or white, remains wide. Also, those who become assistant and chief prosecutors are not traditionally of the same class backgrounds as those members of the bar who take cases against American big businesses and corporations. As Herbert Jacob, the political legal scholar, pointed out in one of his classic works, There are substantial indications that in many cities, most of the assistant prosecutors come from local law schools. In Chicago, for instance, more assistants come from DePaul and Chicago Kent than from the University of Chicago or Northwestern University law schools. They are likely to come from more modest backgrounds than students in elite law schools; they are often graduates of local high schools and colleges and come from families that have lived a long time in the city. The backgrounds of prosecutors suggest that they are particularly sensitive to political implications of their work; they are usually part of the political clique that dominates their locale and, therefore, may be more protective of their fellow officeholders than others would be. (Jacob [1973] 1980) Little has changed about these fundamental political, social, and economic realities of prosecuting criminal defendants in the contemporary United States. Defense Attorneys Backgrounds of defense attorneys are similar to those of prosecutors, working class and middle class. Both groups of attorneys are usually homegrown and typically attended nonelite law schools within their native states. Unlike prosecutors, however, defense attorneys are generally not connected to the local political scene. It is also safe to assume that if prosecutors closed 2.4 million felony cases in 2005, then defense attorneys of some kind were present in each of these cases, although some of the seven million misdemeanors might have been closed without the benefit of a defense counsel. Privately retained lawyers, court-appointed lawyers, public defenders, and contract lawyers do criminal defense work. Regardless of the type of lawyer that one has, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as several twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions guarantee the right to "effective assistance" of counsel to people charged with a crime (Barak 1980; Loftus and Ketcham 1991). Besides the right to representation at trial, the right extends to several other critical stages in the criminal justice process where the "substantial rights of the accused" or convicted may be affected. These stages may include police lineups, custodial interrogations, preliminary hearings, plea-bargaining sessions, first appeal of a negotiated or postconviction sentence, sentencing hearings, and probation and parole revocation hearings. The Supreme Court has also extended the right to counsel to minors in juvenile court proceedings. Defense attorneys often receive a "bad rap" from the public for defending obviously guilty clients or for getting them off through legal loopholes or technicalities. However, the defense attorney is playing a part as an officer of the court by making sure the prosecutor can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while playing by the accepted rules of procedure. The constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and the adversarial nature of the adjudicative process would become meaningless if lawyers refused to defend their clients on the grounds that they knew (or believed, or the community generally believed) that a defendant was guilty. Freedom from arbitrary government power thus depends on defense counsel requiring prosecutors to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, their jobs are to provide the best possible legal counsel and advocacy within the ethical standards of the profession and the limits of the law in order to compel the state to legally prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. On the whole, defense attorneys differ markedly from both prosecutors and judges. First, defense attorneys come on the stage after prosecutorial discretion has engaged in its gatekeeping functions, deciding which cases to drop, to pursue, to negotiate, or to take to trial. In effect, prosecutors initiate cases, and defenders respond. Some may argue that such discretion, in and of itself, gives the prosecutor a head start in preparing a case. Similarly, although defenders may influence the decisions to plea-bargain or to try a case, they exert no systematic impact over the courtroom flow of criminal cases unless they are members of a large public defender's office (Barak 1980). Moreover, unlike prosecutors and judges, criminal defenders are not elected public officials (whose employment is based on approval ratings). They are all private citizens whether they are self-employed or salaried employees of local government. Second, as a group, criminal defense attorneys are alienated and isolated from local politics; their chief alliances are with the vagaries of the legal marketplace and/or the civil service system to which they belong. In other words, not only are defense attorneys not part of a political patronage system, they are also generally not centrally located in one downtown office building, as prosecutors and judges are. Nor do they wield influence comparable to that of prosecutors with either bar associations or legislators. Third, unlike prosecutors, not all lawyers who represent criminal defendants are adequately trained or prepared to specialize in the practice of criminal law. Most lawyers while in law school have typically taken one or two courses in criminal law and criminal procedure. Like most of the other law courses and like most practicing attorneys, the areas of law they specialize in relate to such lucrative fields as corporate, tax, or tort law or to the less remunerative, yet still financially secure, areas of the law such as probate, divorce, custody, or real estate. Comparatively speaking, the practice of criminal law provides its practitioners, with some notable exceptions, less income and status in the community—although the white-collar and corporate crime defense firms tend to be high income and prestige. This discussion provides some of the reasons why wrongful convictions are a serious concern. Because most research has focused on those facing execution, the full extent of wrongful convictions in other felony and misdemeanor cases is unknown. The wrongful convictions generally involve defendants who had public defenders or assigned counsel, not the few who can afford nationally prominent, highly paid lawyers. Such high-end attorneys, however, are generally retained for one or more of three reasons: (1) the crime is sensational or highly publicized, (2) there are large legal fees involved, or (3) the chance to make new law, usually in the area of criminal procedure, is a distinct possibility. If defendants are upper-middle-class, they may still have access to privately retained competent counsel. In most large cities, there is another small group of criminal lawyers who make a very comfortable living by defending professional criminals, such as gamblers, pornographers, drug dealers, and members of organized crime. Other defendants of the middle classes or working classes, who may or may not be able to afford private counsel, have access to the vast majority of criminal lawyers who practice predominantly in the large cities across this country. By and large, these solo criminal practitioners or small partnerships of two or three attorneys struggle to earn a decent living, often practicing other kinds of law to make ends meet. The majority of criminal defendants who are too poor to retain their own counsel must rely on one of three types of criminal attorneys: a court-appointed lawyer, a public defender, or a contract lawyer. Nearly 70 percent of state prison inmates had attorneys appointed by the courts; blacks (77 percent) and Hispanics (73 percent) had slightly higher rates (Bohm and Haley 2005: 287-88). In sum, most practitioners of criminal defense work can be described as either "those who have failed to establish a successful practice and therefore accept criminal cases as a way of enlarging a legal practice, or those who relish the excitement in criminal work and feel that their practice secures some justice for the accused" (Quinney 1975: 213). However, in terms of the relatively few who fall into the latter category, most practice for many years as career civil servants in the public defender's offices, justifying their roles "as mediators between the poor and the courts, resigned to seeking occasional loopholes in the system, softening its more explicitly repressive features, and attempting to rescue the victims of blatant injustices" (Platt and Pollock 1974: 27). As for most young defense attorneys who are busy learning and developing their litigation skills, they sooner or later become bored, cynical, and burned out fighting for "justice for all," whereupon, if they have become competent in their trade, they leave the field of criminal law altogether for middle-class clients and the greener pastures of civil law. Judges The vast majority of judges at the state level oversee trial courts of general jurisdiction, with substantially fewer sitting on intermediate appellate courts or courts of last resort (state supreme courts). Judges who oversee most felony cases sit on the benches of what are variously called "district," "superior," or "circuit" courts (depending on jurisdiction). These trial courts, of which there are more than three thousand across the nation, have the authority to try both civil and criminal matters and to hear appeals from the "lower courts" or trial courts of limited jurisdiction (i.e., city courts, municipal courts, county courts, justice-of-the-peace courts, magistrate courts) that primarily handle misdemeanors, traffic violations, and ordinance offenses. In several states, judges of the lower courts are not required to be lawyers or have any formal legal training. In other jurisdictions, before being elected or appointed to office, the judges will have been practicing lawyers, but many of them will have no background in criminal law before joining the judiciary. In jurisdictions where judges are elected to office, these may be partisan or nonpartisan elections. Where city councils, mayors, legislatures, or governors appoint judges, they are subject to the politics of local and state bar associations. Like prosecutors, then, whether elected or appointed, judges are also sensitive to the political process that generally serves the interests of the people who elected or appointed them rather than the goals of social change. Like prosecutors and criminal defenders, most judges in the United States are overwhelmingly white and male. Judges tend to come from upper-middle-class families, average more than fifty years of age, attend college and law school in their home states, and are typically born in the communities in which they preside. Better educated than the average citizen, a majority of these judges were previously in private legal practice, making more money than they usually do as judges. In 2016, the median lawyer made $118,160 annually—which includes both criminal and civil attorneys—while the median salary for judges and magistrates was $125,880 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016a). In 2014, there were 778,700 lawyers and 44,800 judges in the United States. Compared to prosecutors and defenders, trial judges command more respect, status, and deference from citizens at large. According to imagery, judges are presumed to have enormous power over the adjudication or criminalization process. Actually, though, judicial discretion is far more limited than prosecutorial discretion because judges are subject to appeal and legal review by higher courts. Legislators establish sentencing guidelines, and even when they are technically "advisory," they exert a great deal of control over the outcome. In effect, while trial judges do in fact possess a great deal of power, discretionary and otherwise, they are still less powerful in the administration of criminal justice than prosecutors. Since more than 95 percent of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains, a judge's principal role becomes that of a "bureaucratic stamp" for negotiated deals worked out between prosecutors and defenders rather than one of an interpreter of complex legal matters. What Herbert Jacob wrote about judges and criminal adjudication more than thirty years ago is just as accurate today as it was back then: The massive flow of cases through their courts precludes anything but a cursory examination of the issues brought to their attention. Judges, like many factory workers, sit on an assembly line. They repeatedly perform routine tasks, with each task consuming only a fraction more than a minute. For such judges, the role is exactly the opposite of the intellectual challenge a judgeship is presumed to pose; it is a mind demeaning, stupefying post. (Jacob [1973] 1980: 67) Corrections Workers When it comes to prisons and imprisonment, correctional officers represent the vast majority of workers. They are generally responsible for the security of the institution and have the most frequent and closest contact with inmates. As Richard Hawkins and Geoffrey Alpert (1989) have observed, correctional officers experience a number of conflicts in their work, often become bored (tower workers) or overstimulated (cell block workers), depending on the nature of their jobs, and are subject to role ambiguity or role strain resulting primarily from the contradictions between custody and treatment objectives. Overall, these "officers generally have considerable discretion in discharging their duties within the constraints of rules, regulations, and policies. Yet, because they lack clear and specific guidelines on how to exercise their discretion, they feel vulnerable to second-guessing by their superiors and the courts" (Bohm and Haley 2005: 405). Gresham Sykes's classic study, The Society of Captives (1958), pointed to some ambiguities in correctional officers' power and discretion because they are outnumbered by prisoners and depend on their compliance to keep the daily routine of prison functional, a situation Sykes referred to as one of the "defects of total power." Hawkins and Alpert (1989) have identified three responses of officers to their working conditions. First, officers may become alienated and cynical and withdraw into some relatively safe niche within the prison. Second, some officers in their efforts to control inmates become overly authoritarian, confrontational, or intimidating. Finally, there are those officers who adopt a human-services orientation, seeking to make prisons a constructive place for themselves and for inmates. This latter orientation is not about waiting on the inmates and "serving" them in that sense but rather about a community-policing type of orientation within the cell block rather than out on the streets (Johnson 2002). While correctional officers are most directly engaged with inmates, there is a larger prison bureaucracy that accounts for many jobs. By 2016, correctional agencies employed about 532,000 people. About half of these jobs were in state correctional facilities, about seventeen thousand in federal institutions, and about twenty-two thousand in privately owned and managed prisons (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016). Median earnings in 2016 for correctional officers and jailers were $42,820, with the federal government paying more, local government paying less, and private prisons paying much less ($37,570) (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016b). Salaries at both levels of government were subject to increases after completion of preservice training and/or a probationary period. Although corrections workers for the Federal Bureau of Prisons are required to have a bachelor's degree and some related work experience, paid or volunteer, applicants for state correctional systems need only be eighteen or twenty-one years of age and possess a high school diploma or GED. Slightly more than one-third (35 percent) had at least some college, and about 10 percent of all correctional workers have a bachelor's degree or higher (Sumter 2008). At the same time, there are efforts to upgrade prison work from that of a mere job to that of a professional career. However, low pay, the nature of the work, and the lack of prestige associated with it, coupled with the remote or rural location of many prisons, make recruitment of better-educated officers difficult if the economy presents other opportunities. Conover (2000) sums up the situation from a discussion he had with a fellow guard: "Officer after officer will tell you: there's no way in hell you'd want your kid to be a [correctional officer]." He said that probably ninety percent of the officers he knew would tell a stranger they met on vacation that they worked at something else—carpentry, he liked to say for himself—because the job carried such a stigma. Sure it had its advantages, like the salary, the benefits, the job security, and with seniority, the schedule: starting work at dawn, he had afternoons free to work on his land . . . but mainly, he said, prison work was about waiting. The inmates waited for their sentences to run out and the officers waited for retirement. It was "a life sentence in eight-hour shifts." In terms of gender and race, "77 percent of uniformed staff, including correctional officers, were male (though 35.5 percent of correctional officers hired in 2000 were female), and about 66 percent were white" (Bohm and Haley 2005: 404). When looking more broadly at all employees in state and federal prisons, about 33 percent are female (Sourcebook 2003: table 1.104, 96). And while it is commonplace for women correctional officers to work in federal and state high-security institutions today, the first woman to do so was hired in 1978. Interestingly, women make up a greater percentage of employees in state facilities than they do in federal facilities, and there are a higher percentage of female employees in the South than in other regions. This discussion of corrections workers has focused mainly on workers in prison. However, there are also probation and parole officers working in the field of "community corrections." Indeed, as inmate populations have soared over the past several decades, so have the numbers of persons on probation and parole. For example, between 1980 and 2016, the number of offenders subject to probation rose from 1.1 million to 3.8 million, and parole increased from 250,000 to almost 870,500 (Bohm and Haley 2005; Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016a). Statistics on employment, including race and gender breakdowns, are not available. Implications This chapter has highlighted such factors as globalization, militarism, privatization, and the cybercrime that are affecting the criminal justice enterprise. It has also provided an overview of some of the main categories of workers within the criminal justice system. In examining these workers, the overall conclusion is that criminal justice work is becoming more diverse. Proportional representation of women and people of color working in the administration of justice still seems important for at least two reasons. The first issue is of fairness and confidence in the system: the more closely the criminal justice labor force represents the distribution of diverse groups in society, the more the system appears to represent "we the people." If equality and justice are to happen within the United States, then it is especially important that the justice system and important core of democracy—women and minorities—should be included and in positions of authority (Álvarez and Urbina 2015). The second issue is of incorporating substantively different group backgrounds into the criminal justice process: women and people of color are more likely to bring experiences and insight into the field that generations of white males may not. "Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (i.e., those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups" (Phillips 2014). For example, women have a positive impact on policing by helping to reduce police brutality, increasing the efficacy in police response to domestic violence, and more generally by promoting an emphasis on the use of conflict resolution over the use of force. Similar arguments are made about women correctional officers, emphasizing interpersonal communication and reducing the conflict and violence behind bars. The presence of women prosecutors and judges can challenge the patriarchal and paternalistic attitudes of the judiciary and, in the process, impact the treatment of women lawyers, victims, and defendants. To accomplish change, they cannot be token representation for diversity, a "Society of One"—or even a "Society of Few" (Álvarez and Urbina 2015). Likewise, although the presence of women or people of color may result initially in "affirmative action" tensions and even backlash caused by misguided application of the rules of affirmative action, over time the cognitive dissonance between the "in" and "out" groups dissipates, and mutual identification sets in. Even while the criminal justice system is slowly changing because of the infusion of more women and minorities, forces of globalization, privatization, militarization, and cybercrime are also changing it. One aspect of globalization and privatization is outsourcing to the lowest bidder and moving where costs are cheapest. The result in both cases is the "increasingly brutal wage compression" as mentioned by Morgan Stanley's economist Stephen Roach (2006). In other words, just as the United States is likely to continue to lose jobs because of globalization, it is also likely that more services of the criminal justice system will be privatized. The result will be low-wage, contingent, and no-benefit employment for those at the bottom and greater wealth for those at the top. Additionally, the large increases in criminal justice expenditures have attracted the interest of many businesses, which want to find ways to tap into an expanding source of potential revenue brought about by the new securitization. As they do so, many of these penal-surveillance entrepreneurs also become advocates for "tough on crime" policies that lead to more expenditure and potentially more business and which do very little to solve the crime problem. Ironically, as more of criminal justice is directed by private-public enterprise for profits, concern for public safety, prevention, and rehabilitation becomes secondary. Globalization creates issues related to immigration, terrorism, and cybersecurity (as anyone in the world with a computer can attack the United States). Robert Johnson offers a poignant reminder that "we forgot that our Global Village was a stepchild of technology, not the flowering of community" (2001). People around the world did not consciously decide they all wanted to be closer and set out to invent telecommunications technology and systems to easily move money around. Rather, "technology happened," and people are still catching up with its effects, good and bad. Likewise, the criminal justice system is playing catch-up with homeland security and cybersecurity czars. As with the military, it is not clear whether the criminal justice system is still fighting the last war or preparing for future ones. But it is clear that the war on terror and emphasis on homeland security can lead to further militarization of the criminal justice system, even though the militarization accompanying the war on drugs has not led to increased justice. Indeed, it may very well aggravate many existing concerns about racial profiling and other forms of discrimination such as disproportionate minority contact throughout the apparatus of criminal justice. Review and Discussion Questions What are some of the perceived benefits to increasing the number of minorities and women in law enforcement and criminal justice? What are the similarities and differences between prosecutors, defenders, and judges? Which one has the most power? Why? Define globalization, privatization, and militarization. What is one way that each is having an impact on the criminal justice system? How does the escalation of criminal justice fines and fees affect policing, courts and justice? Why is cybercrime such a challenge for the criminal justice system? To what extent do immigrants contribute to the crime problem, and what is the effect of anti-immigrant policies?