CRIME CONTROL ACTS
The vast majority of substantive criminal
statutes may be characterized, in one way or
another, as “crime control acts.”The term “crime
control act” is often used in the titles of comprehensive
bills that can be hundreds of pages long.
These acts can identify a broad array of new
crimes, revise existing criminal laws, enhance
sentencing and other penalties attached to those
crimes, and finance the provisions of these bills.
Congress enacted a series of crime control
statutes, especially during the late twentieth century,
that has introduced a myriad of new forms
of CRIMINAL LAW at the federal level, including provisions prohibiting MONEY LAUNDERING,
CARJACKING, drug enforcement, criminal forfeiture,
and offenses under the RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT.
According to the Task Force on Federalization
of Criminal Law of the AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, only an “initial handful” of federal
statutes existed at the turn of the nineteenth
century, as federal criminal law consisted of a
total of 17 statutes. Throughout the nineteenth
century, federal criminal statutes were fairly narrow,
generally protecting only federal interests
and interests where the states held limited power
to address a particular form of crime. The number
of federal crimes, however, grew considerably
toward the latter part of the nineteenth
century and into the early twentieth century. By
the 1930s, Congress sought to address concerns
that crime had become rampant across the
United States, and that states had difficulty handling
the increase of crime effectively.
Many of the federal criminal statutes in the
1930s addressed specific forms of criminal activity,
such as KIDNAPPING, RACKETEERING, SECURITIES
FRAUD, and the illegal use and sale of
firearms. In 1934, Congress enacted a series of
statutes known as the Crime Control Acts, chs.
299-304, 48 Stat. 780-83 (codified as amended in
scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.A.). These acts
included provisions for punishment for killing
and assaulting federal officers, EXTORTION,
transportation of kidnapped persons, and interstate
flight, as well as provisions defining crimes
in connection with the administration of federal
prisons and crimes committed against banks
operating under the laws of the United States.
Although the number of federal crimes continued
to grow throughout the twentieth century,
the perception persisted that crime was
rampant throughout the United States, particularly
during the turbulent times of the 1960s.
Faced with the high incidence of crime throughout
the country, Congress enacted the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.
L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (codified as amended
in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.A.). When
enacting this legislation,Congress acknowledged
that crime is fundamentally a state and local
problem, and that it requires the efforts of state
and local law enforcement in order to control
crime effectively. The 1968 statute encouraged
states and units of local government to prepare
and adopt comprehensive plans to address crime
in those particular states or localities. Under the
statute, Congress also authorized grants to the
states and local entities to strengthen and
improve law enforcement, and encouraged
research and development that would be aimed
at the improvement of law enforcement methods,
the reduction of crime, and the detection
and apprehension of criminals.
Included within the original Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act were a number
of controversial provisions regarding wire
intercepting and interception of oral communications,
as well as measures to allow states and
local agencies to control firearms at the local
level. The provisions contained in this act have
been amended and revised dozens of times since
the initial 1968 enactment.
The federalization of criminal law continued
during the 1970s. The Crime Control Act of
1973, 93-83, 87 Stat. 197 (codified as amended
in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.A.) serviced the
same general purpose as the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act. Its primary purpose
was to provide grants and other funding to
law enforcement agencies in their fights against
crime at the state and local levels. Three years
later, Congress approved the Crime Control Act
of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-503, 90 Stat. 2407 (codified
as amended in scattered sections of 18
U.S.C.A.). The 1976 act established the Office of
Community Crime Programs and other measures
that were designed to enhance the ability of
local law enforcement agencies.
Although federal criminal law had undergone
a metamorphosis in the 1960s and 1970s,
the federal criminal code had not undergone a
comprehensive revision since the early 1900s. In
1984, Congress wrangled with a major bill that
would provide this comprehensive revision,
eventually enacting the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat.
1976. Although controversial sections of the
original bill related to CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, an
exception to the EXCLUSIONARY RULE in CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, restrictions on HABEAS CORPUS
proceedings in federal courts, and liability
of the government for CIVIL RIGHTS violations
were removed before the bill was passed, the
final draft of the legislation was not satisfactory
to several members of Congress.Within days of
the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act, Congress enacted the Criminal Fine
Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No. 98-596, 98 Stat.
3134, which repealed some of the provisions of
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act soon after they became effective. Nevertheless, the
provisions that remained intact were significant
in federal criminal law.
Among the new provisions in the Comprehensive
Crime Control Act were those addressing
violent offenses, federal anti-terrorism
provisions, certain economic offenses, controlled
substances, and a number of other miscellaneous
crimes. One of the more important
measures in the act included a new system governing
sentencing for federal crimes. Chapter 2
of the act, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,
established the UNITED STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION, which is responsible for drafting
and revising the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The first of these sentencing guidelines went
into effect in 1987, although they have been
amended significantly since then. The Federal
Sentencing Guidelines not only have changed
the sentencing procedures in federal courts, but
also have affected the ways in which state courts
approach sentencing.
Comprehensive crime control legislation
continued into the 1990s. The Crime Control
Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789
further revised provisions of previous crime
control statutes. Four years later, Congress
addressed problems associated with violent
crimes with the enactment of the VIOLENT
CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT
OF 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796.
That statute increased and enhanced punishment
for violent offenders, including punishment
of young offenders. The statute included
numerous provisions regarding crime prevention.
Some of the more controversial provisions
of this act were contained in title IV of the
statute, known as the VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT. Although the statute has increased
funds for research and education to enhance
knowledge and awareness for judges and judicial
staff in matters involving DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
and sexual assault, the original statute also
contained a measure that would make gendermotivated
crimes a violation of federal civil
rights law. The U.S. Supreme Court, in United
States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740,
146 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2000), struck down the latter
provision as unconstitutional.
Other crime control acts have addressed specific
areas of concern with respect to crime. The
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L.
No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, for instance, addressed
specific problems relating to ORGANIZED CRIME,
including the establishment of protected facilities
to house government witnesses. The ongoing
war against drugs has similarly led to the
enactment of comprehensive legislation, including
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L.No.
99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 and the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181.
Scholars have criticized the continued
growth of the federalization of criminal law, as
Congress continues to enact these comprehensive
crime control bills. Federal criminal law
now consists of more than 3,000 individual
criminal offenses, many times more than the
number that existed a century ago. Supporters of
these bills note, however, that state and local
officials have not shown the ability to address
many of the criminal problems that are
addressed under the new federal laws, and that
federal law enforcement is in a better position to
conduct the type of investigation that is necessary
to curb incidents of crime throughout the
country.
FURTHER READINGS
Abrams, Norman, and Sara Sun Beale. 2000. Federal Criminal
Law and Its Enforcement. St. Paul, Minn.: West
Group.
George, B. James, Jr. 1986. The Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984. New York: Law & Business.
Partridge, Anthony. 1985. The Crime Control and Fine
Enforcement Acts of 1984: A Synopsis.Washington, D.C.:
Federal Judicial Center.
Strazzella, James A. 1996. The Federal Role in Criminal Law.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Periodicals Press.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Sentencing.
