Opposing Causes The Impact of the Supreme Court Under Warren and Rehnquist on Criminal Procedure

The Civil Rights movement in the United States has had a profound impact not only on social and political rights of Americans but on the American criminal justice system. Influenced by the social upheavals of the 1960s, civil rights consciousness seeped into the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) (hereafter Warren Court) (Belknap  Warren, 2005). The Bill of Rights found its way into criminal procedure - the bulk of legal processes governing law enforcement agencies, correctional systems, and criminal trials (Cardozo, 1957). Fearing that law-and-order safeguards in the Constitution were being slowly eroded, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986-2005) (hereafter Rehnquist Court) limited and modified portions of the civil rights guarantees to strengthen law enforcement (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2000). The result is that American criminal procedure today has become a struggle to even out the demand for protection of civil liberties and the need for more efficient crime prevention and regulation.

Civil Liberties and Public Order Today A Delicate Balancing Act
Being the final arbiter, the Warren Court placed heavy emphasis on the constitutional guarantees on the rights of the accused. Because of such activist reforms, efforts toward crime prevention today require a human rights angle (Israel, Kamisar,  LaFave, 2003).  This progressive stance was met with severe criticism from conservative America. Criminal cases, which are decidedly pro-prosecution, were perceived to be more pro-defendant during Warren, sparking fears that the rulings were tantamount to coddling of criminals and creating permissiveness toward crime (Time, 1974). When Warren retired from the High Court, efforts were made to temper the effects of his liberalism by installing conservative justices, the most prominent of which is William Rehnquist, who served as Chief Justice from 1986 to 2005. Until today, the Supreme Court struggles to balance civil liberties and the maintenance of public order in criminal procedure, a historical product of the landmark decisions made by the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court. This essay compares and contrasts several key decisions of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren and Chief Justice Rehnquist that made a significant impact on criminal procedure.

The Warren Court Constitutionalizing Criminal Procedure
The Warren Court is remembered as one of the most progressive group of Supreme Court justices in American history. Warren constitutionalized criminal procedure by adding the concept of social justice and civil rights to criminal law, noting that the important thing in criminal cases is not whether the prosecution or the defense won, but where justice has been done (Time, 1974). Justice, in Warrens definition and based upon the most important Supreme Court rulings in his term, attaches equality and fairness as enshrined in the Bill of Rights to criminal processes (Whitman, 1974).

Warren introduced the concept of economic equality in criminal procedure. In Griffin v. Illinois (1956), the Warren Court accused the criminal justice system of being anti-poor when it struck down the decision of a trial judge who rejected a request by two indigents, Judson Griffin and James Crenshaw, to be provided a free copy of the court transcripts as basis for their appeal (Belknap  Warren, 2005). The trial judge had ruled that free copies could only be obtained in appealing capital cases. This case is considered as the first powerful indictment of the criminal justice systems bias in terms of class and wealth (Belknap  Warren, 2005).

The famous Miranda warning is another legacy left by the Warren Court. Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) is a protection against possible violations of the rights of the accused provided in the Fifth Amendment, or the right against self-incrimination. In a landmark decision, voting 5-4, the Warren Court ruled that any statement made by a defendant during interrogation is admissible only if it can be shown that said defendant had been informed of  1) his right to counsel 2) right against self-incrimination and 3) that defendant not only understood these rights but waived them voluntarily (Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966). The product of this decision, the Miranda warning, is now standard police procedure that assures accused persons are informed of their rights.

The Warren Court also instituted liberality in the reading of the Fourth Amendment in relation to criminal procedure. In Mapp vs. Ohio (1961), the Warren Court ruled that evidence obtained by search and seizure without a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and is therefore inadmissible in court (Belknap  Warren, 2005). The Warren Court clarified a grey area in this prohibition when in Terry vs. Ohio (1968), it ruled that search and seizure conducted by a law enforcer can be allowed when reasonable suspicion exists that a person is committing, has committed, or about to commit a crime (Belknap  Warren, 2005). The product of this decision is called the Terry stop that is practiced by law enforcement today.

Warren also revolutionized the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment or the due process guarantee in criminal procedure with Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) and Escobedo vs. Illinois (1964). In Gideon, the Court ruled unanimously that the Constitution requires state courts to provide counsel to defendants in criminal cases if they are not financially capable of getting one ((Belknap  Warren, 2005). Escobedo held that suspects in criminal cases are guaranteed the constitutional right to a lawyer when interrogated by the police (Belknap  Warren, 2005).

Moderating Warrens Constitutionalizaton The Rehnquist Court
As stated earlier, the reforms instituted by the Warren Court generated concerns that the Supreme Court has rendered law enforcement and the criminal justice system toothless in favor of the accused (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006). The appointment of conservative Chief Justices after Warren - first Warren Burger, then William Rehnquist - was considered to be Washingtons attempt to reverse or counter-revolutionize the constitutionalization of criminal procedure made by Warren (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006). Based on its key decisions, the Rehnquist Court did not appear to completely reverse the Warren legacy, but only modified and limited its scope to strengthen law enforcement.

In Colorado vs. Connelly (1986), the Rehnquist limited the scope of the Miranda decision when it ruled that the testimony of a man evaluated as suffering from chronic schizophrenia is still admissible in court. The Court ruled that this is not a form of involuntary confession that violates the due process clause provided in the Fourteenth Amendment because Miranda suppresses only testimonial evidence obtained through coercive police activity (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006).

The Where Warren tended to interpret the Fourth Amendment in favor of individual privacy, the Rehnquist court was inclined to rule in favor of law enforcement especially in the case of warrantless searches on or aboard vehicles. In Michigan vs. Sitz (1990), the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints was raised where police officers can stop vehicles to examine the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Ruling in favor of law enforcement, the Rehnquist Court opined that the governmental interest in curbing drug influence takes precedence over minor invasions of individual privacy (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006, p. 165). In Florida v. Bostick (1991), the Rehnquist Court further legitimized warrantless searches (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006). Two police officers boarded a bus and for no particular reason, asked defendant Bostick for his ticket and identification. The officers asked for Bosticks permission to search his luggage, and when granted, illegal drugs were found. The Rehnquist Court ruled that the rights of the accused under the Fourth Amendment were not violated because in the Courts opinion, Bostick had not been seized and was perfectly within his rights to refuse to the search (Hensley, Hale,  Snook, 2006).

The present-day struggle in the American criminal justice system between protecting civil liberties and enhancing law enforcement are the products of two Supreme Courts that generally vied for opposing causes. The liberal Warren Court tended to favor individual rights while the conservative Rehnquist Court ruled for law enforcement in dealing with criminal cases. The Warren Court provided constitutional safeguards to prevent any abuse of power from law enforcement while the Rehnquist Court balanced governmental interests over individual liberties. While both Courts seem in various forms antithetical to each other, the key decisions they have made continue to contribute to the development of law enforcement and criminal procedure in contemporary American society.

Does Prison Work

Does prison work This question could be answered by considering the functions of prisons. In the not-so-distant past, prisons were intended to put away offenders so that the rest of society could go on living in a crime-free environment. This is the essence of the social protection theory of punishing offenders which refers to the act of rendering an offender incapable of further offenses temporarily through imprisonment or permanently by execution.Under this theory, the method (incarceration or execution) is not important as long as offenders are put away. As far as the incarceration function is concerned, it is easy to say it works as long as inmates do not escape from detention. However, under this type of punishment, incarceration alone does not solve the problem. What happens to inmates after their release from prison is just as important. History is replete with tales of released inmates who were forced to live in the streets because they could not find jobs for lack of qualification. Because of this, many released inmates were forced to return to crime  stealing, robbing, and mugging  in order to survive. In the process, they are arrested again and returned to prison. Sociologists and criminologists refer to this as recidivism. A high rate of recidivism means that prison does not work.

Putting away offenders permanently by executing them refers to the implementation of the death penalty. For some people, the implementation of capital punishment does not only help society rid itself of offenders permanently It is also necessary so that would-be offenders could be deterred from committing crimes. This is called deterrence. The advocates of deterrence as a form of punishment believe that man is a sensible being whose one primary motivation is self-protection. Thus, his tendency is always to avoid being harmed physically and emotionally. Under this theory, once would-be offenders realize that the punishment for committing crime is more severe when compared to the benefits of committing it, they are effectively dissuaded (Macionis, 2006). Therefore, when murder or rape is punishable with execution, the expectation is for people to refrain from committing these crimes.

However, statistics gathered after death penalty was re-instated in the country in 1977 shows that it is not an effective deterrent. The rate of murder in the United States per 100,000 inhabitants in 1976 was 8.7 while that of rape stood at 26.6. In 1977, after death penalty was re-instated, the rate for murder increased to 8.8, while the rate of rape also increased to 29.4. During the succeeding three-year period from 1978-1980, continued increases in these rates were recorded. For murder, the rates steadily climbed to 9.0 in 1978, 9.8 in 1979, and 10.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1980. The rates for rape similarly rose from 29.4 in 1977 to 31.0 in 1978, 34.7 in 1979, and 36.8 in 1980 (The Disaster Center, 2007). Therefore, if the function of prison is to execute offenders to deter crime, then it is safe to say that it is not working.

Besides being an ineffective tool for deterring crime, some people believe that capital punishment should not be implemented because of two compelling reasons. One of these is the staggering economic and psychological costs involved. Although the financial cost varies from state to state, the fact remains that it is, indeed, staggering. For example, in California, a Los Angeles Times report dated March 6, 2005 explained that the state spends 90,000 just to house one death row inmate in a private cell, amounting to more than 57 million for its total death row population every year, several more millions in litigation costs, besides spending more than 250 million for each of the eleven executions that took place during the year (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010).  

Texas, which topped the list in execution with 405 convicts as of the latest count and which has 330 convicts in death row as of February 2008, claimed to have spent 2.3 million every year for every death row inmate. A simple mathematical computation would show that the state of Texas has to set aside at least 759 million every year for the expenses of the 330 inmates which populated its death row cells during the year (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). The question now, is this is it moral for society to spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars just to avenge the death of a handful of Americans Any rational-thinking American would surely declare that these millions or billions could help more people in need if government allocates them to fund more humane projects. If prisons are judged according to such a function, the inevitable conclusion would be that they simply do not work.  

The psychological cost is just as staggering. Psychological cost takes the form of secondary trauma experienced by people who are involved, directly or indirectly, in the process of implementing the death penalty. These people include prisons officials, people who sit in the jury panel during capital cases, the families not only of the victims but also of the convicts, the members of the clergy, and even journalists who are allowed to witness the actual executions. For these people, witnessing a man actually die has been proven to be very traumatic. Numerous cases have already been documented about members of execution teams who suffered from severe trauma which resulted from their roles during executions. Some of these roles include the strapping of the convict to the gurney, inserting or sometimes reinserting the needle used in lethal injection, and the removal of the remains of the inmate from the gurney after he or she has been pronounced dead (New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, 2010).

One executioner from New Jersey who later served as executioner for the state of New York committed suicide ostensibly because of this. In Alabama and Mississippi, execution team members claimed that they suffered from physical and mental health problems as a result of their participation in lethal injection executions. Because of the emergence of such cases, the Department of Corrections in New Jersey started offering psychological counseling to the execution team members after every execution (New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, 2010). So by killing one condemned person, the process effectively destroys several lives. Is this a way for a civilized society to go If Americans consider themselves moral, they should not allow this process to go on just to satisfy their barbaric thirst for revenge. Judged within this context, prison really does not work.

Secondly, death penalty involves a sense of finality which precludes any possibility of redeeming those who have been wrongly convicted. This view was already raised by John Fortescue, the Chief Justice of England more than five centuries ago, when he said that one would much rather that 20 guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned, and suffer capitally. He stressed that any error in judgment could no longer be amended when a convict has already been sent to his or her death. Whereas if a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and only sent to prison there is always the possibility that the error could be discovered later, the ruling reversed, the accused exonerated of the crime and released from jail to resume his or her interrupted life. While it is true that no one can ever make up for the time spent in jail, at least the person is still alive and can enjoy the rest of his life (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). This argument is not only valid  it is also very humane. The history of American justice system is replete with wrongful convictions especially if the accused are poor African-Americans and Latinos. Since poor people could not afford to hire a lawyer, they are provided with court-appointed lawyers most of whom are not defending their clients wholeheartedly. What if an innocent individual who has been wrongly accused gets the death sentence because of an anemic defense put up by a disinterested court-appointed lawyer Could society ever be justified in killing such a man What happens to the family  especially young children who could not fend for themselves  that such an innocent person leaves behind This situation would only mean that the death of one innocent convict would also amount to the death or the condemnation of several other innocent people. The foregoing discussion only proves that the desire for revenge of advocates of death penalty does not only cost American taxpayers their hard-earned money but also destroys the lives of people involved in its implementation as well as the lives of innocent children orphaned by the practice. As a matter of fact, these reasons are compelling enough for government to abolish death penalty and replace it with other, more humane forms of punishment.  . If one considers the psychological costs of the death penalty, therefore, prisons, in the process of implementing the death penalty for the purpose of permanently putting away convicts for the safety of society, does not work for the good of society.

Developments finally convinced policy makers and prison officials to consider an alternative method of punishment  rehabilitation. This is supposedly a type of punishment which is based on the hypothesis that crime is a result of social problems (such as poverty) or personal problems (such as mental illness). Proceeding from this line of reasoning, social scientists argued that since deviants or criminals are products of worsening social conditions, offenders could be rehabilitated by improving their social conditions. Rehabilitation, therefore, consists of programs aimed at reforming offenders by exposing them to improved social conditions. Under this concept, prisons are transformed into forms of rehabilitation centers which offer programs designed to teach offenders the proper social behavior so that they would know how to behave when they are released from prison and could rejoin society.

Most prisons nowadays are not only for incarcerating offenders  they are also centers for rehabilitation. As a matter of fact, according to its website, the Federal Bureau of Prisons proudly declares that it
 protects public safety by ensuring that Federal offenders serve their sentences of imprisonment in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. The Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism.

According to this statement, prisons have two vital functions. The first is that of confining offenders (in humane environment) so that they are effectively separated from society, thereby ensuring the safety of the latter. The second is to design and implement various programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders so that they rejoin society as reformed individuals, freed of the urge to commit crimes. The first is easily achieved. Once offenders are incarcerated in secure prison facilities, they are no longer in the position of harming society. However, there are serious doubts whether all prison facilities are safe and humane. As long as this element of the prison system is languishing under a cloud of doubt, prisons could not be pronounced as a working proposition.

In considering whether a prison is safe and humane, the question of overcrowding comes into mind. Clearly enough, an overcrowded prison could never provide inmates with a safe and humane environment. Diseases could easily spread and could prove difficult to contain. In addition, the environment would never be safe because riots could easily erupt when inmates are stressed out, depressed, and angry because of the feeling that they are being neglected and deprived of their basic rights. This is a major problem in the state of California. As early as 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger placed the corrections system under a state of emergency because of overcrowding. He warned of the dangers that overcrowding could cause not only to the inmates and the prison personnel but also to the public in general. In view of this, he pronounced that immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm. Apparently, the situation was not alleviated enough because in 2009, three federal justices required California to meet prison standards required under the constitution by implementing a two-year plan that would reduce the prison population by 43,000 inmates. According to the judges, The constitutional deficiencies in the California prison systems medical and mental health system cannot be resolved in the absence of a prisoner release order. The situation was considered urgent enough for the judges to give California only 45 days to formulate a plan that would solve the problem of overcrowding. They emphasized that only prisoner release could solve such an urgent problem, referring to the alternative of constructing new prison facilities as being too distant to be effective. In all cases similar to the California case, the first function of prisons as enunciated in the bureau statement is far from being met, rendering prisons as virtually unworkable.

As far as rehabilitating offenders is concerned, prisons could only be adjudged successful if a decrease in the rate of recidivism could be proven. A low rate of recidivism means that only few released inmates commit more crimes after they rejoin society. The rate of recidivism, therefore, measures the rate of success of the prison systems rehabilitation efforts. The states of Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota modeled their rehabilitation programs after that of the Humaita Prison in Brazil where the whole prison was turned into a religious community. Religious volunteers, who were given the task of handling the day-to-day operations of the prison, saturated the prison environment with religious programming and instruction. Family visits and spiritual mentoring were also promoted. According to Byron Johnson, director of the University of Pennsylvanias Center for Research and Urban Civil Society, the prison gained international recognition by reducing recidivism rate from 36 to 16.

The most popular of these programs was the Innerchange Freedom Institute IFI which was run by the Prison Fellowship Ministry (PFM) established by Charles Colson, an ex-convict who became a born again Christian. The PFM ran its program at the 378-bed Carol Vance Prison in Richmond, Texas. The program consisted of three phases. Phase I was a one-year program which was conducted inside the prison. The purpose of this phase was to build a spiritual and moral foundation among the inmates. Included in this phase were GED tutoring General Educational Development, substance abuse prevention, and life skills. These programs continued into the second phase, but the inmates were already allowed outside the walls of the prison to engage in community service. The third phase was referred to as the postrelease component of the program. Under this phase, the released inmate is provided with adequate assistance in looking for work and a place to stay. The subject was closely monitored and his or her connection with a local church was established. An inmate is considered to have graduated if he or she had spent a total of 16 months with the IFI program (including 6 months or more after being released), had successfully held a job, and had been actively involved in church activities before leaving the program. A preliminary evaluation of the program which was conducted by Johnson and David Larson showed that 17.3 of the graduates of the program were re-arrested after two years, 8 percent of whom were imprisoned. This was definitely lower than the re-arrest percentage of 35 percent and incarceration rate of 20.3 percent of another group of inmates who did not graduate from the IFI program.

Some prisons have formulated their own programs of rehabilitation. One of the most talked about programs was the GED program of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Its effect on recidivism was the subject of a study which was conducted by Kirsten Zgoba. The study was conducted to answer the question Does correctional education have an impact on rate of recidivism A sample of inmates who attended the GED from 1999  2000 while in prison was compared with a matched sample of those who did not take part in the GED. It was found out that the GED participants had a much lower level of re-offending than those who did not attend the GED. In other words, significantly less GED graduates were again arrested, convicted, and imprisoned, indicating that GED participants were able to rejoin society more successfully.

A new twist in prison rehabilitation programs which represented a departure from the general education and vocational training programs was pioneered by the state of Oregon. This resulted from a referendum conducted in the state in 1994 mandating that prisoners work as hard  40 hours a week  as the taxpayers who provide their upkeep. In order to carry out the mandate of that referendum, the Oregon prison officials coordinated with business leaders in the state to put together a comprehensive training program that would train inmates for actual jobs available outside the prison. For starters, inmates were provided trainings for telemarketing and using computers to map water and tax districts from aerial photographs. Small bonuses are given to inmates who perform satisfactorily. Later, they started offering advanced classes in computer which, according to an inmate who was learning how to build customized computers, would enable them to earn as much as 50,000 a year when they leave the prison.

An inmate who completes the training program leaves the prison armed not only with a letter of recommendation duly signed by prison officials but a professionally printed rsum to boot. The program appears to be working. The percentage of parolees who returned to the different prisons in the state of Oregon in 2000 decreased to 25 percent from 47 percent in 1995. The program was also responsible for improving the behavior of inmates because they could be expelled from their favorite training programs for bad behavior. As a result, disciplinary reports for acts like fighting or attempted escape decreased by 60 percent. The program starts as soon as the inmate enters the prison. He or she immediately takes several tests to identify his or her mental, social or educational barriers that would be addressed by the training program.  

So, does prison work Finally, this question could be answered in the affirmative. Prison does work as long as it becomes successful in implementing a sound program of rehabilitation.

1972 Munich Olympic Hostage Crisis The Mistakes made by Germans

The 1972 Olympic Games held in Munich, Germany started out as any other games held over the years (Bard 2). The games were being held 36 years after Germany had hosted the Olympics during Hitlers reign. Germans made several mistakes that resulted in a crisis during the games. The mistakes made are outlined and discussed in this paper.
According to Reeve, the Munich police ignored a letter sent to them by the German secret police about a potential attack on Munich. Reeve argues that the Germans reportedly trivialized the danger by assuming that the threat would be limited to parcel bombs, therefore minimal precautions were taken (228). The terrorists who carried out the attack had an easy time going about their operation undetected. Wolff notes in TIME magazine that the German authorities have been largely criticized for mistakes and oversights that led to loss of lives at the Olympics (4).

The German police, which was in charge of security at the Olympic Village where the games were taking place, showed considerable ineptness in dealing with the terrorist situation (Reeve 48). There appeared various tactical errors that could have been avoided had there been more consultations between the Germans and Israeli intelligence. It should be noted that Israel had an inside knowledge of the Black September and would have shared valuable insight with their German counterparts (Wolff 5). Germany was keen to present itself to the world in a more positive light after the debacle of Berlin Olympics when the nation was under the rule of Adolf Hitler. The authorities therefore relaxed security in a bid not to appear too overbearing (Wolff 1). This move was questioned by the Israelis who felt that security ought to be more visible. In connection to this lax security, the Germans did not do a background check on workers at the Olympics. This oversight provided the perfect opportunity for the some members of the terrorist group to be selected to work as waiters and provide other services in the living quarters of the Israelis (Reeve 2).

Reeve reports that the authorities, having resolved to put the athletes and spectators at ease (35), did not stop people from jumping over the fence to gain access to the village. This proved tragic since it provided a route for the terrorists to gain access into the Olympic village. Wolff notes that several people saw the terrorists climbing over the wall but thought nothing of it (3). In Maslins review of the book Striking Back, she notes that the situation was compounded by apparent ineffectiveness on the part of the organizers who had put the Israeli team in a secluded part of the village with minimal security (1). Such lapses in the security detail ensured that the terrorists had an easier time executing their plans with no one being any wiser until it was too late. After the hostages had been taken, more blunders on the part of the Germans made the situation worse.

Response to the terrorist attack came in the form of border patrol police who were ill-equipped and certainly not trained to handle such a situation (Bard 35). They committed tactical errors that gave the terrorists a big advantage over the police force that was trying to counter their moves. For instance, they allowed the media to film the operation such that the terrorists just had to watch the news on television to figure out what the police were up to (Maslin). According to Wolff the situation grew worse as there were no trained hostage negotiators to talk to the terrorists about their demands (4).This duty fell on Munich police chief Manfred Schreiber who acted as the spokesman for the authorities (4). Israelis offered to help in diffusing the situation but were rebuffed by the Germans who even refused to let the Israelis attend the negotiation proceedings (Wolff 5).

The terrorists demands to be allowed safe passage from Germany was to be granted by flying them to Fiistenfeldbruck airfield where they would be given an airplane to fly them and their hostages to Cairo (Reeve 37). On their way to the airport, the German officers who escorted them realized that there were eight instead of five terrorists they had been briefed about. Wolff reports that this brought confusion to the already ill- planned, under-staffed and under -equipped operation (5). For starters, the officers had no radio to communicate with in order to coordinate the planned attack at the airport. The snipers had no prior training to carry out a rescue attempt of such magnitude, and to make matters worse, they were also outnumbered by the terrorists in a situation that called for at least two snipers for every terrorist (4).

Another mistake had to do with the kind of rifles used. The snipers used twenty inch long barrels instead of the more accurate twenty six inches ones (Wolff 3). There were no telescopic sights or night vision devices on the rifles given to the snipers who were supposed to carry out this operation in the dark. This oversight in providing of proper equipment was made worse by lack of bullet proof vests and protective steel helmets for the snipers (Bard 37). On reaching the airport and having checked the plane, the terrorists must have sensed foul play which prompted them to hasten back to the helicopter carrying the hostages. This move made the German officers to launch an uncoordinated assault on the hardened terrorists who went on to kill all the hostages and one German officer. Wolff summarises the incompetence thus Munich has served as a lesson on what not to do in every conceivable way (6).

Indeed, the Germans failed to provide enough security during the Olympics and then went ahead to plan a rescue that they could not effectively execute. This is a tragedy that might have been avoided had the Germans been better prepared and organized.

1998 Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

The 1998 simultaneous US embassy bombings in Darussalam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were a sign of intelligence failure by the American government (Pike). This is because of the reliable evidence that was available to the CIA and FBI prior to the attacks.  In particular, the American government had overlooked the security concerns by the then U.S. ambassador in Kenya, Prudence Bushnell (Pike). This has also been closely attributed to the fact that Africa was perceived as being less prone to terrorism attacks back in the 1990s. However, the bombings served as a wakeup call intensifying the American governments wars against terrorism. This essay is a discussion of the 1998 embassy bombings, its motivation, casualties, and aftermath.

The U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es salaam, Tanzania occurred on August 7th 1998 at between 1030 am and 1040 am local time (Pike). The attack involved suicide bombers with explosives loaded on trucks. The attack led to the death of an estimated 258 people with more than 5,000 injured (Pike). According to existing statistics, the bigger majority of those killed or injured were locals working in the embassies. Still clear is that the Nairobi bombing was the most destructive killing 212 people while injuring over 4,000 (Pike). This has been closely attributed to the fact that the U.S. embassy in Nairobi was located in a highly congested downtown area. This is also claimed to be a direct result of the security breakdown that was evident in this embassy prior to the bombings. Existing evidence shows that both the Kenyan marine and local security guards had not trained in detecting and preventing terrorist activities.

According to available information, the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings were triggered by U.S. involvement in the arresting and torturing of four members of an Egypt based Islamic extremist group. This led al-Qaeda leadership to issue the U.S. government with warnings of planed terror attacks. However, according to claims by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, the two embassies were seen as the source of the Rwanda genocide plans. He also claimed that these embassies served much during the invasion of Somalia and the potential U.S. plans to divide Sudan (Johnson).

However, the planning and execution of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing was not without American governments intelligence knowledge. As back as 1991, the FBI started conducting investigations on the al-Qaeda terrorism group. First was the investigation of Wadih El-Hage (who later became Osamas personal secretary) by the FBI after he was suspected of murdering an imam in Tuscan, a case which was dropped citing lack of enough evidence to convict him (Pike). With evidence of the FBI and CIA, an al-Qaeda cell was established in Nairobi Kenya in 1993 by Ali Mohamed. The arrest of Mahmud Abouhalima in 1993 following the world trade center bombing gave the FBI and CIA crucial information on leaders of al-Qaeda and their links in America.

In addition, in the 1997, the U.S. government was informed of the plans by al-Qaeda to bombs the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. This led to the arrest of 9 Arabs by the Kenyan government, seizing crucial documents including surveillance photographs of the embassy (Pike). Nevertheless, the CIA dropped investigations on the on this suspects leading to their deportation. The US raiding of El Hagens house in Nairobi is another sign of failed intelligence. This is because, even with the large evidence found, the investigations were prematurely dropped. Still, the NSA intelligence agency of American evidently conducted surveillance on Osamas satellite phone communications but neither shared their findings with other intelligence agencies nor did they take any action (Pike). All these are clear indicators that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings were due to intelligence failure by the U.S. government.

The 1998 U.S. embassy bombings marked the recognition of the al-Qaeda group as a great threat to the security of Americans (Johnson). Indeed, it was after the attacks that the FBI put Osama Bin Laden on its top ten most wanted list. In a move to mitigate the al-Qaeda terrorist group, the US government lounged a number of missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. This was because the two nations were closely associated with al-Qaeda group. However, the missile attacks particularly in Sudan were seen to compromise US investigations into the bombings. This is because they never cooperated with the Sudanese government in investigating two suspects of the attacks arrested by the Sudanese intelligence agency (Johnson). Moreover, the attack on Afghanistan led to the withdrawal of a gas pipeline plan that was to pass through Afghanistan.

All in all, though the 1998, embassy bombing revealed a great intelligence failure by the American government, it was no doubt a wakeup call towards intensified war against terrorism. First, the bombings led to more devoted intelligence investigation into the organizational structures of the al-Qaeda group. The relocation of the U.S. embassy in Kenya to a more secure zone is also another lesson gained from the attacks. These bombings are indeed the reason why law enforcement agencies have invested much on bomb and terrorist detection and deterrence.

A critique of an article on public attitude towards white collar crime

The article addresses the issue of white collar crime and the attitudes towards the punishment of white collar offenders in comparison to ordinary or street crime offenders in the United States of America. The article laments at how the public has been duped into seeing as victorious the parades of corporate executives going to jail for decades while the institutions they left behind are not changed to prohibit such crimes from recurring. The article criticizes the conspiracy by the government and others in powerful positions to parade a few executives and have them sent to jail for long periods of time while failing to close the gaps that provide people in such opportunities to commit white collar crimes such as embezzlement.

The author of this article initially looks at how public attitude towards white collar crime has changed over the years to become what it is today where Americans have a significantly harsher attitude towards white collar crime. The article states that the American public was largely inattentive to the problem of crime in the upperworld. However a variety of events such as the Watergate scandal, Vietnam War and the civil rights movement led to a rise in concern about white collar crime. The article shows how public willingness to punishing white collar crime has increased with increased awareness of its existence. This article talks about how the invention of the opinion poll in the 1930s led to a scientific and accurate way to examine public opinion. It shows how national polls have in recent years showed that about 70 of respondents have requested tougher punishments for white collar criminals. It talks about how such polls have even been cited in U.S. Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases to show how the public supports a get tough approach to crime.

This article looks at how opinion polls such as Newsweek poll have over the years focused on ordinary crime by mostly asking questions that relate to this ordinary or street crime. They have done this by asking questions such as do you feel safe when you walk on the streets at night He thus justifies his article by stating that research on white collar crime has been sparse in comparison to opinion polls on attitudes towards violent or other forms of crime that are ordinarily committed by the poor and minority groups. This article talks about three periods in relation to awareness and attitudes towards white collar crime. The fist is before the year 1970, the second period is from year 1970 to year 2000 and the third period is from year 2000 to the present. The article states that awareness has increased gradually over the years and currently over 70 of Americans support imprisonment for white collar criminals.

The article criticizes how many white collar crimes are done with impunity since the law is not strict enough to specifically outlaw their activities. Politicians and the government are unwilling to specifically outlaw some of these crimes which are not yet outlawed in sufficient detail. Apart from using evidence from opinion polls this article also uses credible sources such as E.A. Ross Sin and Society. Ross warned against the white collar criminaloids and said that the United states was experiencing a cultural lag in that its laws and public sentiments were not consistent with the new threats posed by advancing industrial capitalism. Ross was warning about a lagging public attitude towards white collar crime and its punishment. A similar argument is shown in this article in White Collar Crime by Edwin Sutherland. This article analyses various opinion polls on public attitudes and shows the change until people doing white collar crimes were considered as equal to ordinary criminals such as a burglar or mugger. This article cites relevant material and establishes a consensus that the problem being investigated is relevant and important. The article calls for further research on the issue of attitudes towards white collar crime and relevant laws. The author concludes that the structures that enable corruption, embezzlement and other forms of while collar crime be reviewed and altered.

The FBI and the Mafia

When one thinks or hears of the word  Mafia,  what would immediately come into mind are gangsters or the mob, organized crime, secret rites, code of silence,  family,  illegal activities, the clich of making an offer one cannot refuse, and more often than not brutal public executions out of retribution.  What is even worse is Italians, including Americans of Italian descent are more often than not stereotyped as mafiosis compared to other ethnic groups in the United States, no thanks to colorful characters from Al Capone and Lucky Luciano of the Prohibition Era to John Gotti of the 1990s who have ironically become  legendary  for a mobster.   Mafia  and  Italian  has seemed to become intertwined.  Hollywood has further reinforced that stereotyping in the movies they produced portraying the Mafia ranging from the serious  The Godfather  trilogy and  Goodfellas,  to even the light-hearted ones like  Analyze This  and its sequel,  Analyze That,  and even a television mini-series  The Sopranos.    As a matter of fact, acclaimed Hollywood actors Robert de Niro and even Al Pacino and Sylvester Stallone (to an extent) are often associated with such roles as though no other role would fit them except that of gangster owing also to their Italian ancestry.  Nevertheless, former Mafia members, either arrested or  retired,  have also helped shed more light in the face of the testimonies they gave to help one gain a better understanding of the Mafia.

Criminal organizations are formed when it involves two or more people because a network is created.  The composition of this network varies from loose, informal groups to highly structured ones common among institutions such as corporate or military organizations.  If there is something these mainstream organizations and criminal organizations have in common, it is the existence of a hierarchy of authority, division of labor and continuity (Finckenauer and Waring, 11-12).

Being a criminal organization, the Mafia has often clashed with the law on countless occasions.  Owing to their unique nature of appearing legitimate as well as their ability to work behind the scenes, there are times when they are capable of controlling the police through a combination of bribery and blackmail though there are times they can also fight the law by killing police officers.  In the United States, there is probably one law enforcement institution that the Mafia could not penetrate, this is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which is the premier law enforcement agency of the United States whose history has been also colorful and sometimes the stuff of legend dating back to the time of the  G-Men  of the Prohibition Era as well as the era of the Public Enemies, cracking down on gangsters of all forms and sizes, much of it was attributed to the FBIs first director, J. Edgar Hoover who himself was a legend in his own right.  They have developed a reputation so great that no criminal would dare go up against the FBI, this also includes the Mafia.  When it comes to the FBI, this is where criminals balk.

The Mafia
The word  Mafia  is not associated with a single monolithic organization of organized criminals. It is a loose association of various criminal organizations in Sicily, sometimes called  families.   Despite differences in leadership, they share a common organizational hierarchy and follow a code of honor which is considered very unusual for a group whose business is crime ranging from the petty street crimes to white-collar crimes.    Criminal organizations have been in existence since the early times and the word  mafia  was first introduced sometime around the 1850s in Italy.   The  Mafia is often associated with Italians and also Italian-Americans,  but eventually, this word would also be used by other non-Italian criminal organizations especially that of the Russian mobs that also established their  franchise  in the United States as well as in other parts of the world.  To a certain extent, the word is also used to label similar criminal outfits like the Japanese Yakuza and the Hong Kong Traids although they themselves do not use that name.  Yet despite the different cultural backgrounds, they still share that common hierarchy and honor code as the  original  Sicilian families.

The United States has become one of the  franchises  of these mafias owing to the immigration of these people to American shores and it would be here that they would establish their own outfits that would be independent from the ones in their countries of origin.  When Italian immigrants created their American-based mafia, it is collectively known as La Cosa Nostra though the families under it are autonomous from one another, most especially from the  old country.   As a  family,  a mafia outfit is centered on its head or boss.  Hollywood popularized the term as the  Godfather  or  Don  though the actual term used by insiders is the  capofamiglia.   He receives a portion of every  job  done by a family.  The  coronation  of a Don varies from one family to the other.  For some, a Don can designate anyone to take his place should he die or be imprisoned, whether it is his son or a trusted subordinate though not necessarily the underboss.  In some cases, according to insiders, a Don can be elected among the  caporegimes  in a ceremony similar to electing the Pope.  A  consigliere  is an adviser who provides counsel to the boss and can be made up of more than one men.  They primarily serve as mediators between other families in settling disputes peacefully.  Below would be the  caporegime  or simply the  capo  who is the head of a  crew  made up of  soldiers  who make up the muscle of the family and perform all the tasks.  The Don appoints a capo from the ranks based on reliability (Capeci, 7-10).

The  soldiers  form the crew of the capo.  They perform the  dirty  work in order to move up the ranks.  To be a  soldier  is to be considered a  made man  which in turn means one is fully accepted to the family after completing a rite of passage or proving ones worth to the capo and the hierarchy after performing a mission whether it would be to transport illegal goods or to kill a marked person.  Nevertheless, the primary role of the soldier is to make money which in turn is moved up to the upper echelons but they still keep a portion for themselves as an incentive (Finckenauer and Waring, 11).  At the bottom of this totem pole are the associates.  They are not full-fledged members of the family but they collaborate with them whether it involves unloading hijacked trucks or a union member with ties to the mob and does their bidding in the course of their regular duties and even lawyers who defend   represent mobsters in criminal cases.  Non-Italians can be associates but can never rise up the hierarchy as membership is exclusively for men of Italian descent though half-Italians are also accepted provided he is Italian on his fathers side of the family.  Yet even these  worker bees  of the family hierarchy can become rich and powerful with the money they earn from their illegal trade but in the underworld, it can be competitive and possibly cutthroat.  This can be very dangerous for associates.  Because of their distance from the family, their loyalty is suspect as they are the most susceptible to being turned by rival families or even the authorities and more often than not, a lot end up dead.  Killed for betraying the family (Capeci, 11-12).

As stated before, only men of Italian descent, or at least Italian on their fathers side can be accepted into the family.  They may be made to undergo  tests  to assess their resolve and commitment to the family and if often involves committing murder though not necessarily performing the act but acting at least as accomplices.  If they successfully complete these missions, these new soldiers are inducted in a ceremony that is an eclectic mix of Roman Catholic and masonic rituals.  The most common part of the rite is where the candidates finger is pricked and blood is smeared on a small statuette of a saint and made to take the vow of  omerta,  or silence.  The code of silence is one of the treasured values of the mob and it requires all its members never to disclose their activities to anyone outside, including their spouses under the pain of retribution which would also be extended to their families.  To become a member of the family is a blessing and a curse.  For the former, it promises wealth and power if they play their cards right and a feeling of belonging to a bigger family with a vast network.  But all of these come at a higher price should one betray the family as death is often the punishment meted out and it is done in a very brutal and inhumane way so as to set a lesson that this should not be done by others.

Like a legitimate business, criminal organizations exist mainly to make money.  And given their criminal nature, they have a free hand on how to obtain it and it is mostly through illegal means.  The means on how the mafia makes money has not changed over the years of their existence.  If the early generation were engaged in petty thievery and smuggling, this is still continued by their present-day counterparts.  Mafia operations run nearly the whole gamut of activities which may be too numerous to enumerate.  Besides thievery, other  small-time  means of making money would involve extortion where they would demand protection money from the community to protect them from rival gangs.  Those who refused would be roughed up or terrorized to force compliance.  They also indulge in loan-sharking where they lend money and charge high interest rates making it difficult for the debtors or payees to pay back and if they are unable to pay, they are punished severely.

The huge amounts of money made from these activities would enable the families to invest it in legitimate businesses.  Before this can be done, they would deposit them in banks and in the process  launder  the money to make it  clean  or legitimate enough to be used for legitimate activities such as buying a house or starting a legitimate business which in turn could serve as a front for their continuing illegal operations which keep their coffers full (Volkman, 133-136).  In effect, mobsters can appear like upstanding members of society rather than the scruffy-looking, coarse and heartless underworld image often associated with them.  With their new found power and influence, money became a new weapon for them to wield.  This money has enabled them to infiltrate other legitimate businesses, they can afford the services of the best lawyers to protect them legally and if this is not enough, they would bribe the authorities and use blackmail if any of them waver in their commitment.

What makes mobsters different from individual petty criminals is that they have  rules  or parameters on how they operate and they are untouchable.  The latter attribute  is a combination of the power and influence they wield and the endearing reputation they made to the common folk which made them more sympathetic rather than resentful.  The  legendary  Al Capone was an example.  His ill-gotten fortune was invested in businesses which enabled him to live in luxurious hotels and was able to rub elbows with the whos who of society. Despite being known as a criminal.  He was virtually untouchable.  Contrary to the notions that such mobsters are heartless by nature, men like Capone also knew how to play to the crowd.  In doing so, they would become the proverbial Robin Hoods of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  In Capones case, this was the era of Prohibition and Capone and his gang knew that the law could not keep men from wanting to have a drink and he supplied them and in the process was endeared to them that they would overlook the fact he was a criminal (Reppetto, 111-115  Calderon).

Another reason why mobsters are untouchable is they would do a favor to someone who could not go to the authorities in times of trouble.  Such was the case of Frankie Yale, who recruited Capone into the family before the latter moved to Chicago and later went on to become the boss of the Brooklyn-based  Black Hand  family.  Yale helped a friend, a Greek emigre restauranteur Nick Colouvos with his problem when the latters daughter was sexually molested by his own brother.  Yale helped the girl recover and helped bring justice to Colovous telling him that killing may not be fun but it is sometimes necessary especially to those who deserved it (Balsamo and Carpozi, 1-6).  Furthermore, although most of their activities are illegal, they are  harmless  in the sense that no one gets hurt or killed except for those who deal with drugs.  From here, it is easy to understand why mobsters are protected by the very people they victimize because they know how to win hearts and minds in the right places.  This was part of the rules where they operate to ensure the continued cooperation of the people and less interference from the authorities.  The violence they employ is measured and yet proven effective as it keeps people docile.

The natural enemy of any criminal, petty or organized, is the law, and the war between these two protagonists have been going on since time immemorial.  Organized crime has proven to be one of the most challenging adversaries of law enforcement agencies.  What makes them so difficult to defeat is the fact that these mobsters often appear as legitimate individuals running legitimate businesses and trying to obtain evidence to the contrary is very difficult if not impossible.  The mob is  smarter  than the average street criminal in the sense that they know how to operate in mainstream society and they know how the rules work, as well as the law.  They have an army of lawyers and accountants to protect them from any legal or fiscal entanglements that could implicate them.  Furthermore, their monetary power is employed to  buy  local law enforcement or court officials which is why they are hardly arrested or convicted of any crime (Finckenauer and Waring, 15).

The only law enforcement agency that has proven to be more effective in combating organized crime in the United States is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Created in 1908, it began as the Bureau of Investigation.  They investigated mainly white-collar crimes.  By the First World War, the role of the Bureau evolved to include intelligence and counter-intelligence as they dealt with foreign spies operating on American soil.  During the gangster era of the Prohibition years, the Bureau competed with the Department of the Treasury in investigating these crimes and the latter prevailed.  Furthermore, another weakness the Bureau had was dealing with federal crimes that were local in jurisdiction and called for creative and innovative ways to address them.  It was upon the appointment of J. Edgar Hoover as Director of the Bureau that the FBI began to evolve into an effective law enforcement agency.  This was underscored by the exploits of the  G-Men  during the Prohibition era where they brought down colorful characters such as John Dillinger.

Yet despite the reforms made by Hoover and the successes they had against other crime syndicates, FBI operations against the mafia in the 1930s was hamstrung by the lack of federal laws. Following Prohibition, many mob activities were carried out locally, or if interstate, and they did not constitute major violations within the Bureaus jurisdiction.  The FBI could not interfere in local crimes and this was why the mob was able to get away and continue their activities with impunity. Furthermore, FBI agents never did undercover work during the administration of Hoover because of the  clean  image he wanted to uphold for the FBI and engaging in such would sully the Bureaus image especially if the agents get involved in nefarious activities in the line of duty (Pistone, 112).  It was only in 1957 that a need for federal legislation was needed with the discovery of the New York State Police that many of the renowned mobsters from all over the United States had congregated in upstate New York for a meeting. The FBI managed to obtain information on all the participants that were identified, and based on these findings, they arrived at the conclusion that there existed a nationally-organized crime network. However, it was not until insider Joseph Valachi agreed to testify that the mafia was given a name - La Cosa Nostra. Nevertheless, the  mafia  or  mob  still stuck as the term to describe members of this syndicate.  It was then that the public and the authorities realized the true extent of organized crime networks in the United States and was not exclusively limited within a given state (US Department of Justice).

Following Valachis expose, Congress passed two new laws to reinforce federal racketeering and gambling statutes that were enacted in the 1950s and early 1960s to aid the FBIs fight against mob influence in these activities. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provided for the use of court-ordered electronic surveillance in the investigation of certain specified violations which involved wiretapping and later on more sophisticated means as new technology was introduced. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute of 1970 entailed that these families are to be prosecuted for these diverse criminal activities even without the direct involvement in the crimes. The FBI also began employing agents for undercover work by the late 1970s, and through their efforts, these helped the FBI develop cases that put almost all the major crime family bosses in prison by the 1980s.  The successful infiltration of FBI agent Joseph Pistone into the Bonnano family underscored these efforts.   Along with Valachis testimony, Pistone, aka Donnie Brasco, corroborated Valachis accounts into the day in the life of a mobster as he spent six years with them, participating in jobs and gaining their trust.  He was exposed after the arrest of several  big fishes  and had a contract put out on him.  Today, he still lives under close protection and in secrecy (Pistone, 10-14).

What makes the FBI more effective than local law enforcement is that they adhere to strict moral standards that it is virtually impossible for anyone in the mob to penetrate it or even  buy  an FBI agent.  The FBIs Office of Professional Responsibility has always seen to that as they have exposed agents who have been spying for the Soviets during the Cold War era.  Furthermore, mobsters adhere to a code that they would never attack an officer of the law and try to avoid it as much as possible for killing one, no matter what the circumstances, would  turn up the heat  against them and would be counter productive.

Despite the fall of several prominent mob bosses, the ongoing  battle  between the mafia and the FBI still goes on as both sides try to outdo, outthink and outwit each other in a game of cat and mouse while avoiding violence.  This is why they have made great efforts to prevent the authorities from trying to look into their business and finance records that could incriminate them.  The FBI has to play by the rules and could not arrest outright any mobster on mere suspicion unless they are caught in the act of committing a crime and in the aftermath of Pistones undercover work, the mob has become very cautious in dealing with others.  Despite being hampered by legal technicalities, the FBI is still determined to crack down on organized crime because it can still do greater harm to society and it has remained true to the missions defined by its leaders and will continue to adhere to it for they are the last line of defense of civil society when other law enforcement agencies fall short.

Womens Prisons Gangs, Recruitment, Violence Before and During Prison Sentences, and Psychological Dysfunction and Disorders of Female Gang Members

Due to the sudden increase in female convictions and prison sentences, it must be determined if there is a correlation between the crimes that lead to prison sentences and gang affiliations.  It must also be determined if gang membership post-conviction is due to a psychological dysfunction or disorder among female gang members.  Women entering prison as non-gang members but who later join a gang while incarcerated must be examined for psychological disorders, just as females who are already gang members when they enter a prison.  Commonalities between pre-prison gang affiliation and post-conviction gang membership must be scrutinized to determine the rationale for joining a gang.
This study should focus on womens prisons in the United States on only the state level, excluding federal prisons.  The existence of gangs within a womens prison must be validated, and the names of the gangs must be discovered.  It must also be determined as to why women are being sentenced to prison at such a high rate and if it is due to gang affiliations.  It should be known if any of these women were gang members before entering prison, and if so, what gang were they a member of.  A final question relating to gang membership that must be answered is how and if a female gang member can leave the group, and if so, how.
There needs to be sufficient detail concerning gangs in womens prisons as there has been a great influx of crime being committed by women.  The cause of women becoming criminally violent must be addressed.  Other areas of concern need addressing as well such as what happens to the children of these women once they are incarcerated  How do the families survive once the woman is locked up  What if a woman is pregnant or finds out that she is pregnant once she is incarcerated  Is there any evidence of mental instability or mental disorder  What is the womans general physical health  What level of education did the woman achieve before entering prison  What is the likelihood of the female inmates children following in the gang-related footsteps of their mothers  There seems to exist a cognitive behavioral imbalance in women who join or are already members of gangs within a prison.  This psychological dysfunction and disorder is demonstrative through acts of violence and judicial convictions.  Personality disorders are a given, but are these psychological disorders comorbid to other more serious mental disorders

There seems to be no true evidence of the existence of gangs within a womens prison, yet correctional officers claim that they do exist.  Womens prisons are not near on the same scale as a mens prison in respect of gang related activity, but from a racial and ethnic standpoint, there is a subconscious segregation that is indicative of gang-type behavior.  Mark Potak, editor and writer, for the Intelligence Report, conducted an interview with a male prison gang member in the Winter of 2002 (Potak, 2002).  The article explains why prison inmates join gangs, and he speaks of female inmates and their gang affiliations.  Saxena, writer for Associated Content, argues the fact that female inmates are generally more docile and non-violent (Saxena, 2010).  She speaks of female inmates acting more like families than gangs.  Two other journal articles are cited for documenting the existence of gangs within womens prisons.  The first comes from the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and the second comes from the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture (Steiner  Wooldredge, 2009 Clowers, 2001).

Method and Design
There is not much in the way of evidence provided since not much research has ever been done on this particular topic.  Thorough research would need to be performed to find any concrete evidence from research past coupled with present research in order to view the increases in violence, women entering the prison system, and gang relation.  A twenty question survey will be sent out one womens prison in each of the fifty states.  Each prison will be asked to have 50 women of their choosing, to fill out the questionnaire.  A pre-paid manila envelope will be included as so the prison is not left incurring the postage costs.  A cover letter will accompany the questionnaire with regard to the reason for the questionnaire, why it is important, and what college the student is affiliated with conducting the research.  This research is important because gang activity and existence has been overlooked and forgotten about.  It is fundamental to the true rehabilitation of the women in prison to have a program designed to help them and deter them from becoming gang related or gang members.  The questionnaire would include questions about gang affiliation, prior criminal behavior in relation to gang membership, economic status pre-prison, family life growing up, sexual abuse, and other questions that would provide answers in many different areas.

This information is tantamount to the future of womens rehabilitation in the prison system.  Programs could be devised as a result of this research that would deter and help female gang members to leave that life in the past and look towards a happier future without crime.  If evidence of mental instability or mental disorder is present, then these reasons and causes should be formally addressed as these individuals are more vulnerable to becoming gang members due to a mental defect.  There is barely any research available on this topic.  There is much to offer in the way of researching a mens prison, but a womens prison is almost obsolete.  It is an ironic fact that the rate of women entering the prison system for serious and violent acts of crime is rising faster than that of their counterparts.  Research on this topic is inevitable in order to conduct the job as responsible citizens.  How can society expect these women to come out of prison reformed, when such a serious and life-threatening issue is being overlooked

This project is estimated to take approximately six-months to complete, depending on the efficiency and cooperation of the womens prisons returning the questionnaires in a timely fashion.

This project can be conducted for less than 300.00.  The only items needed are one pack copier paper, two printer cartridges, manila envelopes, and postage.  The initial mailings to each womens prison will be done via certified mail with a return receipt.  The return of the questionnaires will be done by regular first-class mail.  The results will be documented on an Excel computer program and backed up onto a disc.