Criminal Justice cannot just be nominally defined as in above but must be carefully studied so as not to further propagate “misperceptions” on the System. The joint Bureau of Justice Statistics and Princeton University Project held in October 1993 (Statistics, 1993) Study Group's Professor Charles H. Logan of the University of Connecticut, aptly defines criminal justice to mean: “Promoting secure communities means more than to achieve low crime rates. Rather, it means providing the security to life, liberty, and property that is necessary for communities to flourish.
It means enabling citizens to pursue their collective life as they see fit without undue fear of having that life disrupted or destroyed. It means securing communities against criminals who assault, rape, rob, defraud, deal drugs, burglarize, extort, and murder, but it also means securing them against the community-sapping disorders that are commonly associated with crime and the fear of crime-disorders such as petty crime, public drunkenness, aggressive panhandling, loitering, graffiti, abandoned cars, broken windows, and abandoned buildings.
Restoring victims means to honor the community's obligation to make victims of crime and disorder whole again. The victims' rights organizations, manifestos, and laws that have proliferated over the last decade or so generally reflect and embody this long-overlooked goal. Victims of crime have a special claim upon the criminal justice system's human and financial resources. Whatever else it may achieve, no system that dishonors that claim can be considered legitimate” (Statistics, 1993). How then do we get into the System. Appreciating the U.
S. Criminal Justice System In the system, the immigration offender is expected to be at, in any given time, through From the Time Crime is Committed, to Early into the System, to Prosecution and Pretrial Services, to Adjudication, to Sentencing and to Sanctions, to Corrections; and finally to Out of the System. These background literature data are reviewed, because these items have to be analyzed to capture or grasp the multifarious issues involved specifically with respect to Mexican Immigration Control (Andreas, 2002; Corporation.
co. uk, 2006; Foundation, 2005; Goldsborough, 2002; Litras, 2000; Magazine, 2007; Papademetriou, 2006; Reform, 1997; VivirLatino, 2007; Wall, 2002; Watson, 2007a, , 2007b). The following 3 figures of data all came from the U. S. INS can only show us the magnitude of the situation before us, especially for those data tracked since as far back as 1900 or even earlier as since 1890.
Two out of ten states, California and Texas, having common border with Mexico serve as host for resident aliens, with obviously Mexicans of course included, as shown by Figure 1, “Top Ten States of Residence for Aliens, 1990 Census” (Foundation, 2005). Three out of ten states, California, Texas, and Arizona serve as host for illegal aliens as shown by Figure 2, “Top Ten States Where Illegal Aliens Live, October 1996” (Foundation, 2005).