How a broken criminal justice system has fueled the crisis of American democracy, and how we can address both problems together.

American criminal justice is in crisis. Prisons are swollen, confidence in police has plummeted, and race- and class-based biases distort every aspect of the system. American democracy is in crisis, too, as the chasm of loathing and incomprehension that divides political factions grows ever wider and deeper. Legal scholar and former prosecutor David A. Sklansky argues that these crises are deeply intertwined. And if the failures of American criminal justice are near the heart of our political divides, then reforming the system is essential for repairing our democracy.

Criminal Justice in Divided America shows how police, courts, and prisons helped to break American democracy and how better approaches to public safety and criminal accountability can help to repair it. Engaging critically with concerns from both the left and the right, Sklansky lays out a clear and deeply researched agenda for reforming police departments, prosecutors' offices, criminal trials, and punishment. Sklansky seeks pragmatic solutions that take account of political realities: the lofty ideal of empowering the people or the community can mean little when members of the public or the community disagree. While efforts to defund the police have exacerbated political conflicts without addressing the underlying problem of how and when force should be used to protect public safety, reforms aimed at improving police accountability, restraining prosecutorial power, and expanding the role of juries can bring together warring parties who share a concern for justice.

Ultimately, Sklansky argues, reform must be rooted in a strong commitment to pluralism--bridging political divides rather than worsening them, strengthening democracy, and securing the broad support that enables durable change.

A law professor and former prosecutor reveals how inconsistent ideas about violence, enshrined in law, are at the root of the problems that plague our entire criminal justice system--from mass incarceration to police brutality.

We take for granted that some crimes are violent and others aren't. But how do we decide what counts as a violent act? David Alan Sklansky argues that legal notions about violence--its definition, causes, and moral significance--are functions of political choices, not eternal truths. And these choices are central to failures of our criminal justice system.

The common distinction between violent and nonviolent acts, for example, played virtually no role in criminal law before the latter half of the twentieth century. Yet to this day, with more crimes than ever called violent, this distinction determines how we judge the seriousness of an offense, as well as the perpetrator's debt and danger to society. Similarly, criminal law today treats violence as a pathology of individual character. But in other areas of law, including the procedural law that covers police conduct, the situational context of violence carries more weight. The result of these inconsistencies, and of society's unique fear of violence since the 1960s, has been an application of law that reinforces inequities of race and class, undermining law's legitimacy.

A Pattern of Violence shows that novel legal philosophies of violence have motivated mass incarceration, blunted efforts to hold police accountable, constrained responses to sexual assault and domestic abuse, pushed juvenile offenders into adult prisons, encouraged toleration of prison violence, and limited responses to mass shootings. Reforming legal notions of violence is therefore an essential step toward justice.