NEW YORK CITY'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 1895-1932.

摘要

During the early twentieth century, New York reformers and court administrators, like their counterparts in other American cities, perceived an increase in crime and general breakdown in the administration of justice. In response to these problems, they proposed a series of remedies designed to bring greater effectiveness to the legal system and help reduce the level of lawless behavior. Much of their program for change won legislative enactment and persists to this day: probation, family court, children's court and legal aid for criminal offenders are all part of the Progressive legacy. The present study analyzes how these and other innovations originated, what they intended to accomplish, what their impact was, and how well they succeeded in accomplishing their self-stated goals.;City reformers and court administrators responded to these problems in a variety of ways. Relying on case records and other primary resources, the present study first shows how various factors unrelated to the guilt or innocence of the individual offender, such as his age, prior record and prior relationship with victim, often influenced the decisionmaking process. Prosecutors and judges attached importance to these factors and disposed of their cases accordingly. From bail setting to sentencing, the courts dealt more severely with certain categories of defendants more than others.;Faced with the problem of mounting crime, city reformers and court officials attributed the growth of lawlessness to a variety of causes. Many reformers ascribed crime to a series of environmental, psychological and other factors which, they claimed, shaped the offender's personality. . . . (Author's abstract exceeds stipulated maximum length. Discontinued here with permission of school.) UMI.;Popular conceptions of crime and criminal justice were generally well founded. From 1900 to 1930, the rate of overall and violent crime in New York increased faster than the growth in general population. At the same time, the effectiveness of the courts in many respects declined: conviction rates for the period remained low; rates of delay increased; and recidivism was on the rise.