UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 18.1 Free with a free account
History, Development, and Structure of the U.S. Criminal Justice System
Criminology · Chapter 18: The U.S. Criminal Justice SystemSection 18.1 · lesson 76 of 91video coming soon
← Legal Frameworks and Investigative Strategies for CybercrimeNext lesson: The Criminal Justice Process, Crime Control, and Due Process Models →
In this lesson
3 loosely coupled components, roughly 50 systems, and pervasive discretion.
- Describe the components of the system and their relationships.
- Trace the historical development of the American system.
- Explain the consequences of federalism for criminal justice.
- Explain discretion, funding, and the wedding cake model.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,567 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Whose Failure When Courts Drown?
A county's police arrest far more people for one offense. A few months later, the courts are drowning. Whose failure is that? We talk about the criminal justice system as if it were a single machine. This lesson asks whether that word, system, really fits.
Lesson Roadmap
Components, Federalism, History, and Case
We start with the three components and the idea of loose coupling. Then we look at federalism, which makes American criminal justice mostly a state and local enterprise. We trace the system's history, from colonial roots to its twentieth-century growth. Then we examine three features that shape everyday outcomes: funding, discretion, and the wedding cake model. Along the way, we meet the prosecutor, whose charging decision is the most consequential choice in the system. We close with a case, and an analytical habit worth keeping for the rest of the course.
Core Concept
Three Components, Loosely Coupled Institutions
The American criminal justice system is conventionally described as three components. They are law enforcement, courts, and corrections. But the word system is somewhat misleading, because these components work less like an integrated whole, and more like loosely coupled institutions. Each has separate funding, separate governance, and often distinct or even competing objectives. In one jurisdiction, a police department, a court, and a corrections agency may answer to entirely different officials. They run on separate budgets, and measure success by entirely different metrics. This is not really a design flaw, since separation of powers and federalism push toward distributing authority, rather than concentrating it. Criminal justice follows the same institutional logic found throughout American government. What makes it distinctive is that these institutions' decisions affect one another's workload so directly.
Consequences
Workload Shifts and Absorbed Reforms
Loose coupling produces two recurring consequences. First, a decision in one component creates workload in another, with no shared accountability for the result. Suppose police increase arrests for a given offense category; courts gain caseload, and corrections gains population pressure. Yet the policing agency bears none of that cost, and answers for none of it. Second, reform in one component is often absorbed or reversed by the others. Imagine a court reform designed to reduce pretrial detention, and an unrelated policing change that raises arrest volume can offset it. The system's overall outcome stays largely unchanged, even though the reform worked exactly as designed. That is a sobering lesson for anyone who evaluates reforms one component at a time.
Figure Walkthrough
Workload Moves Forward, Accountability Does Not
This figure draws the three components in sequence. Law enforcement feeds cases to the courts, and the courts feed people to corrections. At each junction, work is handed along. Workload moves forward, but nothing carries accountability back. The agency that makes a decision is rarely the one that must live with its consequences. Keep this picture in mind whenever an outcome seems to be one agency's failure. Often, the real cause sits at a junction between two components. Near the end of this lesson, we'll watch such a gap open up in a single county.
Definition
Federalism Creates Roughly Fifty Systems
Federalism is the division of governing authority among federal, state, and local government, and it shapes criminal justice profoundly. Most criminal law and most enforcement in the United States is state and local, not federal. The great majority of arrests, prosecutions, and sentences happen under state law, in state and local institutions. Federal criminal law and enforcement occupy a smaller, though still significant, share. The result is roughly fifty separate systems. Each state has its own criminal code, its own court structure, and its own corrections system. Many states add further local variation within their borders. So no single description of the American criminal justice system can capture every jurisdiction's practice. That caution applies to structure just as much as to criminal law.
Comparison
Authority Across Three Government Levels
Compare authority at three levels of government. At the federal level, the federal criminal code is enforced by federal law enforcement agencies. Cases go to federal district and appellate courts, and sentences are served in the federal correctional system. At the state level, the state criminal code is enforced by state police and investigative agencies. State trial and appellate courts hear the cases, and the state runs its prison system. At the local level, state law and local ordinances are enforced by local police departments and sheriffs. Local and municipal courts handle cases, and local governments run the jails. Notice the split in corrections: jails are typically local, while prisons are state or federal. That split will matter when we look at funding.
Historical Layers
From Colonial Roots to Mass Scale
The system's structure reflects several historical layers. The colonial inheritance carried over English common-law traditions and institutions, adapted to American conditions. The nineteenth century brought professional policing, with organized, salaried departments replacing informal arrangements. It also brought the penitentiary, an institution built around confinement as the primary criminal sanction. The twentieth century brought the constitutionalization of criminal procedure. Through incorporation, the Supreme Court applied Bill of Rights protections against state governments, not only the federal government. That process reshaped state and local criminal procedure over the course of the century. The century's other defining development was a substantial growth in scale, especially in corrections. The Bureau of Justice Statistics documented that growth across the later decades of the century. Explanations include sentencing policy, such as determinate sentencing from Subchapter one point two. They also include mandatory minimums from Subchapter fifteen point two, and broader shifts in enforcement priorities.
Key Feature
Funding Misalignment Weakens Coordination
The funding structure shapes how institutions behave. Police, courts, jails, and prisons are typically funded through separate budget processes, often at different levels of government. That creates a misalignment: the entity making a decision often does not bear its downstream fiscal cost. Picture a county that funds its own police and jail. A policing decision that raises state prison commitments costs that county very little. The state, not the county, pays for the additional prison population. This misalignment reinforces loose coupling. It removes even the financial incentive that might otherwise push the components to coordinate.
Key Feature
Pervasive Discretion and Prosecutor Power
Discretion is the latitude an official has to choose among lawful courses of action. It is present at every stage of the criminal justice process. A police officer decides whether to stop someone, and a prosecutor decides whether to charge. A judge decides where, within a sentencing range, a sentence should fall. In the ordinary case, each decision is made without close external review. This pervasive, largely unreviewable discretion is arguably the system's single organizing feature. It may matter more to how the system operates than any formal rule of procedure. Among all the actors, the prosecutor holds what is generally recognized as the most consequential discretion. The charging decision determines which offense, if any, a case proceeds on. It shapes the defendant's bargaining position in the plea process, and faces very limited external review.
Quick Check
Who Runs the Pretrial Facility?
Quick check. A man is arrested, and he is held behind bars while he awaits trial. Which level of government typically runs the facility holding him? Pause, and decide. Local. People awaiting trial are usually held in a jail, and jails are typically run by local governments. Prisons, by contrast, are state or federal.
Key Feature
Wedding Cake Model of Case Tiers
The wedding cake model describes how cases are processed, in tiers. At the top sits a small number of highly visible, resource-intensive cases. The middle tiers hold a larger number of serious but less visible cases. The broad base holds a very large volume of routine, low-visibility cases. Top-tier cases receive extensive individualized process and public attention. Base-tier cases are processed quickly, with comparatively little individualized attention. That holds even though the same formal procedural rights technically apply to every case. The model also explains how public understanding forms: media coverage concentrates on the top tier, so perception is shaped by unrepresentative cases. When you hear a claim about how the system works, ask which tier it actually describes.
Case Study
A County Raises Arrests, Courts Back Up
Consider a composite county that changes its policing to substantially increase arrests for one offense category. Several months later, the jail population has risen sharply. The courts received no extra funding or staff, and case backlogs are growing. This is loose coupling in action: law enforcement's decision created workload that the courts were not resourced to absorb. No one was accountable for the mismatch. The broader lesson is an analytical habit. Before judging a reform or explaining an outcome, ask which component the change targets. Then ask which components bear its consequences, and what accountability, if any, connects them. An apparent single-component failure is often better explained as a mismatch between components.
Practice
Classifying Functions by Government Level
Now, classify some common functions by level of government. Operating a municipal police department and operating a county jail are local functions. Prosecuting most criminal cases, hearing most trials, enacting most criminal codes, and running prisons are state functions. Operating a federal correctional facility and staffing a federal investigative agency are federal functions.
Practice
Tracing Reforms Downstream
For the comparison exercise, trace each reform downstream. A policing policy raising arrests targets law enforcement, and courts and corrections absorb the consequence. A sentencing reform shortening sentences is set in the courts, and its effect lands in corrections.
Reverse Problem
Which Component Offset the Court Reform?
Now the reverse problem. A court reform meant to reduce the jail population shows no net change after six months. Which component most likely offset it? Pause, and decide. The component most likely to have offset it is law enforcement, through higher arrest volume.
Key Takeaways
Look for Mismatches Between Components
Let's pull it together. The components are loosely coupled, with accountability gaps at each junction. Federalism means roughly fifty systems. Costs fall on someone other than the decider. The prosecutor's charge is the most consequential choice. So look for mismatches between components.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About History, Development, and Structure of the U.S. Criminal Justice System
Why is the American criminal justice system called a "system" if its parts work separately?
How does federalism affect criminal justice in the United States?
What is the wedding cake model of criminal justice?
Why is prosecutorial discretion considered the most powerful discretion in the criminal justice system?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →