The U.S. is a democracy where the people have a voice on the laws that are passed and the laws that are rejected. This democratic structure also affords the people, whose views and beliefs change from one generation to another, to modify or extinguish existing laws or to establish new laws to improve our lives.  The majority of the laws governing our criminal justice system were created before our generation's time to guarantee our citizens safety; our parents raised us to uphold these rules and regulations, but inevitably newer generations also test traditional values and develop new ideals they identify with. Behavior that was stamped as illegal decades ago could be regarded differently now, which is why we vote to reconsider the value or relevance of certain laws in current times. Recent violent tragedies in our country have once again put our criminal justice system in the limelight; the consensus is now more than ever that reformation is pressing. The criminal justice system has had laws that were created in the 70s and scream for reconsideration and transformation to reflect our times. Reformation of sentencing, capital punishment, monopolization of prisons, and reevaluating the War on Drugs are areas that must be addressed to effect change.

The Department of Justice is the world's largest office and the central agency for the enforcement of federal laws. It ensures public safety against foreign and domestic threats such as terrorists and crimes. As of 2006, the Department of Justice has employed over 110,000 in fields such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Prisons. The Department of Justice also oversees many people incarcerated in the system. In fact, according to the Whitehouse, "In 2009, nearly seven million individuals were under supervision of the state and federal criminal justice systems. Nearly two million of these individuals were incarcerated for their crimes, while the remaining five million were on probation or parole being supervised in the community" (DoJ online). This indicates that a small, but nonetheless significant, percentage of Americans are actively part of the criminal justice system as either inmates or parolees. According to the Department of Justice, if the criminal justice system were to be reformed, certain federal crimes would be affected such as kidnapping, bank burglary and fraud, civil rights violations and narcotics violations. These laws being affected does not mean that they do not hold any power in the justice system, it simply means they would be adjusted to fit in to a 21st century society in the United States. The people against reform are mainly arguing that the crime rate would rise and prosecutors would lose a tool to extract information if laws were made more lenient.

There are several problems with the current sentencing guidelines that deal with mandatory sentences and sentencing ranges, depending on the crime committed. Rachel Barkow, director at the center on the Admission of Criminal Law at New York University stated that:

"By almost any measure, federal prosecutors wield too much power. Because many federal laws govern similar behavior and are written broadly, prosecutors commonly have multiple charges from which to choose. This means they typically have many sentencing ranges to choose from as well. Thus, they can  --  and do  --  threaten defendants who want to exercise their trial rights with charges that will carry longer sentences than the charges they will file if defendants plead guilty." (Barkow)

Barkow is in favor of eliminating mandatory sentencing and allowing for more discretion in a court room by judges and juries in order to allow for more flexibility. Another issue regarding sentencing deals with criminal sex offenders and their lifetime registration with the system. Under the current laws, sex offenders are required to register themselves even after leaving jail or prison. Because of this, they are often limited to where they can reside, or work, despite completing their sentences. This specific example can be broadened to where we can not only see how it affects criminals who have been registered as sex offenders, but also criminals who face drug charges, or any charge that shows up on record after having served time in a jail or prison. In a sense, it is as if these people are kept locked up, never truly completing their sentence because the charges follow them everywhere they go, affecting them negatively for the rest of their lives. "Over 600,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S., including individuals convicted of non-violent crimes such as consensual sex between teenagers, prostitution, and public urination, as well as those who committed their only offenses decades ago" (Human Rights Watch online). However, I am not saying that we grant these criminals amnesty, but rather that we look for a new solution to the problems that these criminals are facing today for mistakes they committed in the past. 

Capital punishment has increasingly grown in the news in the past couple of years and 35 states still use capital punishment as of 2013. Critics of the death penalty point to numerous flaws within capital punishment such as the execution of innocent people, the racial bias, and socio-economic bias, just to name a few. The death penalty also costs billions in tax payer's dollars. Studies show that in the past 40 years, for every 9 people the government has executed, one person on death row was found innocent. In any other industry this error percentage would be intolerable and thus require immediate perfection but when someone's life doesn't affect yours directly, people in today's society are reluctant to speak up. Another major cause for reformation is the mixture of drugs used in executions throughout the United States. An event two years ago that sparked the nation's attention concerned the execution of Clayton Lockett, who was administered three different drugs as part of the lethal injection process and suffered a 43-minute heart attack after the first injection. Any execution on death row should be a painless death and any pain felt should be considered torture. The three-drug process used involved first injecting the person with a sedative, typically followed by a drug to paralyze the body and then stop the inmate's heart. Another case in Tucson Arizona describes a death row inmate who suffered two hours in agony before dying from lethal injection after being injected with 15 times the amount of a sedative and painkiller they typically used for this process. Death row is not supposed to be an agonizing process in which the inmate suffers, gasping for life but rather a process that should execute the inmate with as little harm and as quick as possible. It is already absurd for another human to be able to decide a person's fate, but to make them suffer during the process is inhumane. A clear resolution to this would be to eliminate capital punishment, or move to a single drug for lethal injections. If we are "a nation under God," is our system exercising too much power with capital punishment?

The growth and monopolization of prisons is another reason why reformation is needed. The prison industry is one of the fastest growing multimillion dollar industries in the U.S. that has its own "trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors" (Mohr). The source also states that private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, aside from what it costs for the inmate to live there. The motive should not be to lock up our citizens but rather to help correct their behavior through either counseling or rehabilitation activities. To bring these numbers into perspective, an executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative stated a couple years back "in 1970 there were roughly 350,000 inmates in our prisons. Today there are more than 2.2 million which means 1 in every 31 Americans is subject to some form of correctional control" (Heuvel). If so many citizens are being locked up for the same offense, shouldn't that be an indication that perhaps the law needs to be reevaluated?  Instead of wasting billions of dollars on prisons and locking people up we could redirect that money to schools and communities, so that kids follow the right path and don't end up in jail. If we start from the source it is much easier to eliminate the problem, instead of just prolonging it. 

In 1971 the Nixon administration began the "War on Drugs" when he "dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants" (Drug policy online), and in 1973 with the creation of the DEA. It continued through the Carter and Reagan era and later increased the penalties during the Clinton and Bush presidencies for drug-related crimes. "Within the past 40 years, the U.S. government has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars fighting the War on Drugs. Despite the ad campaigns, increased incarceration rates and a crackdown on smuggling, the number of illicit drug users in America has risen over the years and now sits at 19.9 million Americans," writes Time's Claire Suddath. The government's spending of trillions of dollars and still not accomplishing the mission of eliminating drugs suggests that the government should change the way it is approaching the situation. In the 20th century when the drug laws were put into action, the United States was in a different time: crime rates were higher, marijuana had not yet been decriminalized and was listed as public enemy number one. After more than a decade, the United States is not the same country it was back when these laws were put in place. Marijuana is decriminalized in certain states and crime rates are not as high, which should be an indication that reform is needed in the criminal justice system to adjust to the times we are in now with newer laws being passed.  Should the drug problem perhaps become a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue? 

Change is so sought after that a majority of the presidential candidate's address criminal justice reform in their debates and on their campaign websites, and appear to be in favor of lessening the severity of certain laws that the public finds harsh. Considering the speeches the candidates gave along with what they posted on their campaign site, it is evident that each candidate has an idea of what needs to happen in order to reform the criminal justice system, and which areas need it the most stemming from distinguishing violent from non-violent crimes, reducing mandatory sentencing, or a solution to reducing racial disparity for drug crimes. 

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Rand Paul want to ease mandatory minimum sentences. Gov. Chris Christie wants to release nonviolent offenders pending trial without bail. Gov. Scott Walker, former Gov. Rick Perry and former Senator James Webb want to expand drug treatment as an alternative to prison. Senator Marco Rubio wants to make it harder to convict federal defendants without proving intent" (Baker).

The Recent events that the candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mark Rubio, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz focused on where the incidents that occurred in Ferguson, Charleston and Baltimore and represent the peoples voice saying change is needed in the criminal justice system. When citizens feel as if certain laws do not fit in or should belong in this generation, the government should notice this and act on it. A book was recently released in which it featured a series of essays written by the presidential candidates who all agree that "the criminal justice system is flawed and needs to be revised" (Washington Post). Democrats and Republicans are putting forth ideas that are both in favor for reforming the criminal justice system which shows the severity of the topic, since both parties are coming together with the same ideas.

The U.S. has always enjoyed the status of a global power, certainly in such areas as economics, innovation, military, or political influence; but it has equally enjoyed global criticism of its criminal justice system with the majority in favor for reformation and a small percentage against it. The main argument against reformation is that the criminal justice system is not broken, and that changing sentencing laws would be a huge mistake, however sometimes it is better to fix something before it breaks in order to avoid other problems.  A democracy guarantees a government of its people, and since humans are flawed it is inevitable that their systems comprise imperfections as well. Reformation is evidently a big issue if politicians from both parties share the same ideas on where change is needed. The key lies in succeeding to evolve in accord with the change of time and generational expectations.  Enjoying a competent system where the needs of all the citizens are met is in many ways like a marriage: a daily battle seeking constant reform. We are not asking to change the core beliefs of our founding fathers, but simply to adjust to the generational changes of our time.   There is no easy or fast cure to our problem but beginning with the already stated ideas of minimizing sentencing, reducing the monopolization of prisons, capital punishment, and the "War on Drugs" is a step in the right direction.  It will be a long process and the time is now. 

