Meth in America

Methamphetamine has been a drug that I have known to exist my whole life, but it is interesting to think that it is a rather recent problem. Meth has grown to even rival cocaine in popularity and abundance but surprisingly prior to the 1990s it was a very minor problem ( Rodriguez et. al 16). The drug has exploded across the country which brings not only challenges to law enforcement but challenges for society as a whole. Usage has increased from a reported 1.8 million in 1994 to 8.8 million in 2004 ( Rodriguez et. al 16). In just a ten year span this is a pretty dramatic increase. It is reported that up to 12 million people in the United States have tried meth at least one time in their lifetime (Sommers and Baskin 3). Meth provides a legal battles in the United States and abroad, social problems as well as a high cost of cleaning up the toxic chemicals.

                Being a very recent problem, law enforcement and legislators have had to react to face this challenge. On a federal level, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 was a good first step at identifying the issue on a national level ( Rodriguez et. al 16). Not only does increase the penalty for imply possessing meth, it also includes those who manufacture the substance. Unlike drugs such as cocaine, there is not a single ingredient to meth. It is made of a majority of readily available chemicals. Not only this, it can be manufactured almost anywhere from a mobile lab to a complex super lab. This has provided a unique issue that law enforcement have to face. Of the meth labs producing the product in the United States, one third are small local labs while two thirds are a part of Mexican criminal trafficking organizations (Oetjen 34). Not only do law enforcement have to deal with the trafficking and manufacture across international lines. Along with this, the chemicals that are used to produce the substance are another battle altogether such as pseudoephedrine. As a result, agencies such as the DEA have added regulation on who can receive large quantities of the substance as a way to not only target the manufacture but limit the availability of the ingredients.

                Methamphetamine also impacts a unique population that differs from past drugs such as cocaine. Meth is not bound by being a intercity drug, it actually seems to also prevail in rural and urban areas alike. The cliental is also different, the stereotypical meth user is a white male who holds a blue collar job ( Rodriguez et. al 18). It also has been widely used by a younger crowd as a party drug. Reportedly 14.8% of young Americans have tried meth at some time in their life, a higher percentage than the normal population (Sommers and Baskin 3). The substance all of these people are using is very addictive with some dangerous withdrawal symptoms that include aggressing, cravings and paranoia. There has also been some connections of violence related with meth. A study found that in of 205 people in the study in a three month period 55 of them committed some form of violence while high on meth(Sommers and Baskin 2). So not only is this drug highly addictive, and widespread it also has a relation to violence.

                Another big issue faced with meth is simply the cleanup of the substance. Methamphetamine is the result cooking chemicals together in a lab this does not come without its byproducts. Not only is the process of cooking meth dangerous, the material and labs left behind pose a serious health hazard. As a result  extra training has had to occur to train law enforcement with how to deal with it safely. All of this training and disposal is not without its costs. In 2004, the Drug Enforcement Agency spend 17.8 million dollars in cleaning up 10,000 labs (Oetjen 36). The costs in just cleaning up what is left as a result of meth are just another aspect of meth that provides a unique challenge to law enforcement that was not present with other drugs.

                Overall meth is a very dangerous substance being both highly addictive, readily available and used by many. It provides unique challenges in dealing with the violence, the trafficking and the cleanup of the substance. Law enforcement has been able to address the legal issues involved and continues to adapt to combat the substance as it continues to grow.

Issues with gang

Although gangs are not a new phenomenon but defiantly continue provide a unique challenge for law enforcement and the legal system. According to the Department of Justice in 1998, there were over 28 thousand gangs with nearly 800,000 gang members in the United States (2). This is a massive problem. There is a unique challenge with combating gang violence, trying to find unique ways of targeting gangs without trampling on people's rights. Two of the biggest legal issues I see with gang enforcement deal with the legality or gang specific ordinances and profile based policing.

                A very good example the issues with specific ordinances targeting gangs comes with the case of The City of Chicago v. Morales. The city of Chicago attempted to combat gang violence by passing a ordinance against gang members loitering (2). As a result they were able to cite people for failing to disperse. This ordinance eventually was challenged and was brought the Supreme Court which voided it based on the vagueness in the ordinance.

                The city attempted to pass a law which overall would be a good idea theoretically to combat gang violence but due to the way it was written it was not fully legal. Finding a effective way to combat gang loitering is a important thing that should be balanced. I work as a intern for the Kent Police Department. On a weekly basis, after school high school students who are gang members end up loitering in the shopping mall parking lot across from the school. This loitering almost always leads to very large group fights and even shootings but it continues to happen every week. Despite it continuing to occur, the police seem pretty much powerless to prevent it. There is no law or city ordinance against loitering in the city, if there was this problem may be able to be prevented. At the same time, is it really legal to cite people for simply being gang members who are present at a certain place. Another problem is loitering ordinances is that they seem to target gang members simply as their status as gang members.

                Another legal issue that comes up with enforcement against gangs is the protection of equal rights. There is a sad fact that frequent gang recruitment targets youth in poorer racially diverse parts of the country (5). This is not to say that minorities are the only ones who participate in gang activity, there are plenty of white gangs. Especially with laws similar to the loitering ordinances, it is very easy for law enforcement to simply profile gang members based on race (14). In the case of Morales, police targeted simply on the fact that a Hispanic person was loitering in a mostly white neighborhood. People have a right not to be targeted based on their race.

                Gangs are something that do need to be enforced in order to prevent but this enforcement should not come at the cost of the basic rights of people. The City of Chicago attempted to combat this with a loitering ordinance. Unfortunately the writing and application of this was too vague. I think that ideas such as the loitering ordinance are a good step in the right direction in trying to find the middle ground between effectively combating gang violence but also protecting rights.

                Discriminatory enforcement further adds to this issue of a balance that needs to be created. It is a good thing that police are proactively trying to stop gang violence. At the same time, the people who are target for the police cannot be target just for the fact that they are a gang member and a minority. The police cannot racially profile someone based on their background or status as a gang member. This practice is something I believe to be pretty widespread. Like the loitering ordinance and other gang related laws a balance needs to be found. Rather than simply targeting someone based on their race or standing the specific criminal behavior of the person should be the focus of them being targeted no their standing. This is important to protect the equal protection of all people from being targeted.

Issues with Domestic Violence

Domestic violence seems to be one of the oldest crimes yet it is so difficult to detect and prevent. There have been laws written to directly address the problem of domestic violence. This has helped with the identification and response to the problem by law enforcement and intervention groups. Despite the recognition, these attempts seem to be doomed to fail due to the underlying problem with lack of cases being reported all together. Domestic violence has existed behind closed doors since the beginning of time, I do not think it is something that we will ever see disappear.

                In the State of Washington, domestic violence has been defined by state code 26.50.010. The code presents a very broad definition of both the actions that constitutes domestic violence but also the groups of people who can be affected by it. I think the best part of the Washington law is that it includes not only physical harm, but also the simple fear of being in danger of harm (RCW 26.50.010). Just the fear of being a victim of domestic violence prevents some women from leaving, so creating a law that defines the fear of harm as just as bad as actual harm help from a legal standpoint resolve some of that issue.

                Another thing I like about the state’s definition is that it does not simplify the parties involved in domestic violence as just man vs. women. Although a male offender and female victim is the stereotypical example that people tend to think of in a domestic violence situation, in reality it is much more widespread than that. The definition includes anything from married persons, adults living together to relatives (RCW 26.50.010). I think that having a definition this broad helps encompass anyone who could be a victim of domestic violence.

                Having a broad definition I think is a good step to have in the fight against domestic violence. There are some problems I see with the enforcement and prevention of domestic violence situations. In Washington State a victim of domestic violence can get a temporary order of protection. On paper I see this as a very good solution to the problem. The temporary order is written to help protect someone from being victimized from more violent acts by setting rules of contact between parties and sets rules regarding having a perpetrator and victim from being near each other (RCW 26.50.070). This idea is very good and I support any situation where protection orders are helpful. However, I see a major problem in the false comfort a protection order might give. Without having the police constantly follow an offender, or track him through gps, there is almost no way to prevent any volition. The victim can report the violation after the fact at which time police can respond and deal with it, but in some cases this could be too little too late. Without taking away the privacy of both the victim and offender through tracking, there is no real cost effective way to ensure that orders of protection are followed.

                 Despite having their strengths and weaknesses having laws in place to protect victims does no good if there is no reporting victim. All of the laws in the world cannot protect someone who is being victimized yet has not reported it. Sadly I see this as the biggest obstacle in the fight against domestic violence. Domestic violence may seem like a huge problem, but it is actually much worse than what we know about. According to the text, the FBI estimates that only 10% of domestic violence is reported to the police (Olivero, 2005). Thinking about that in terms of scale, the reported amount of domestic violence is not even the tip of the ice burg. So despite all the efforts in creating good laws and having a swift law enforcement response, only a small fraction of the victims are actually being addressed.

                It is hard to fix a problem that on paper does not even exist because it is not reported. I think that until reporting of the crime occurs in the majority of the cases, domestic violence will still go on undetected for many years. Some attempts have been made to help detect the victimization. For example, the inclusion of mandatory reporting by hospitals (Olivero, 2005) helps increase the number of cases that are reported. Not all victims are given medical treatment therefore the hospitals cannot detect what they cannot see.

                I think that domestic violence will continue to be one of the most widespread undetected crimes forever. Even if reporting of the crime increases and a majority of domestic violence is detected there will still be cases of it that fall through the cracks and are not detected. This is not to say that the current enforcement and detection is bad. I think that any case of domestic violence that is prevented is a good thing. Unless there is a radical change in the behaviors of society that totally get rid of crime altogether, there is bound to be many victims of domestic violence.

Restorative Justice

Differences between Restorative Justice and Conventional Justice

Andrew Rosenthal

Central Washington University: Law and Justice- Pierce County Center

The History and Meaning of Restorative Justice:             

Restorative Justice is a branch of punishment that deviates from the conventional spectrum and takes a look at the underlying issue of crime including the parties involved. It is defined as, “Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Zehr 37).  In essence restorative justice provides a alternate way of addressing both the bad act committed but also the resulting damage of the act caused to the victim and the community.

Historically restorative justice is not a new concept; it has taken place through a variety of forms. An early form of restorative justice was practiced by the Maori people, “restorative justice has its roots in the indigenous rituals of New Zealand communities where shaming of the offender was used as punishment for wrongdoings” (Gumz 1). This early form of restorative justice focused on targeting the bad act and making the offender feel responsible for the act. This is not the only early use of restorative justice; Native American tribes frequently practiced restorative justice through talking and sentencing circles (United Nations 219). These general concepts were able to take hold during the changes of society that occurred during the 1970s partially due to the feminist movement which called for raising awareness of the needs of crime victims. This idea took hold in Canada to a great extent and was able to progress to part of America, Australia, and New Zealand (Gumz 2). Although the American form of restorative justice is not as widespread and accepted as the Canadian form, it does have a strong place in the system.

Four Differences between Restorative Justice and Conventional Justice:

There are some distinct differences between how restorative justice and conventional justice operate. One big difference comes in the form which ‘punishment’ is implemented. In the regular justice model, punishment comes in the form of locking someone up, in turn having the person incarcerated acts as a way to punish them for the wrong they have committed. Restorative justice however, provides a system of meetings rather than simply incarceration to provide a more meaningful punishment (Zehr 21). These types of meetings are divided into victim/offender, victim/offender and family members, community conferences and community restorative boards provide a meaningful encounter to educate the offender.

Another big difference between the systems is the role of the offender. In the traditional justice system, an offender gets caught, and then is sentenced for the crime they committed and simply locked up to serve their time (Zehr 21). The restorative system, gives an offender a more active role in being accountable for the damage that has been caused, and repairing that damage as opposed to just being punished for breaking a law.

The victim’s role is also greatly changed between the systems. In the regular system, “many crime victims feel “left out” of their own proceedings, which causes them to feel frustrated and marginalized by the justice process” (Gromet 396). Traditional justice provides the victim with a minor role almost limited to a victim impact statement. In restorative justice however, the victim is a primary role-player with a similar importance as the offender with the ability to be actively involved with the meetings and directly confront the offender.

Almost absent in conventional justice is the role the community plays. Most of conventional justice occurs behind closed doors; the only real chance the community has to play a role is in the form of a jury trial, other than that the community is not really acknowledged as an important part. Through restorative justice, the community takes a more active rule, as being a party that has been damaged and needs to be healed. The community also plays a role in the process through being a part of community conferencing and community reparative boards.

Five Unique Benefits of Restorative Justice for Social Justice

To accurately describe five benefits of restorative justice in terms of social justice, first we need to gain a understanding of what social justice entails. In relation to social work it is described to include the ethical need to challenge injustice on a individual or group levels, protection those vulnerable to oppression, and provides equality and human relationships (Gumz 1).

                One benefit of restorative justice with regards to social justice is the attempt to save the offender from ostracizing themselves from society.  With restorative justice, the offender is able to maintain an active role in society and not be condemned as a person but have the act be condemned. It provides a way for an offender to have equal access to methods of rehabilitation and acknowledge the damage caused, and provides a method reintegrate into society (Gromet 2).

                The victim also sees some unique benefits, restorative justice allows, “Restore victims. Materially and psychologically, to where they were before the crime occurred” (Gromet 2). It allows the victim to have a equal and fair part of the process and confront the offender. It also works to compensate the victim for the damage that was caused which is not all that prevalent in traditional justice.

The community receives a few specific benefits from restorative justice that fits under the social justice tree. What was found in the Vermont study, the community is able to be more involved with the system and take up an active role. Restorative justice sees crime as not just a violation of laws but a violation of the public’s trust, and allowing the public to have a active role provides a sense of equality. It also allows the community to be compensated for the damage that was caused to them and move on in a positive direction as a result.

                The procedure of restorative justice provides a method which social justice principles are fulfilled.  Unlike traditional justice, restorative justice provides a means for all parties to be involved equally, “so that justice is provided to the offender, victim, and the community” (Gumz 3). Each party is not taken away from the equation and is given a fair opportunity to have an equal say in the process.

Another aspect of social justice that is prevalent among restorative justice and not conventional justice is human relationships. Restorative justice provides a sense to repairing harm done, not leave wounds to heal on their own. Restorative justice usually includes a face to face interaction between all parties involved (Gromet 2) which allows humans to directly confront and come to agreements about the harm that was done. The offender is able to come to terms with the actions they have taken and be involved in a direct discussion about the harm caused with the victim and community. This also allow the community to maintain its interest on healing wounds between its members and provides the victim the opportunity to deal with the offender as a human and confront them directly, empowering the victim. All of these aspects of restorative justice include human relations which is key part of social justice.

Juvenile Justive vs Adult Justice

Differences between Juvenile Justice and adult criminal justice

Andrew Rosenthal

Central Washington University: Law and Justice- Pierce County Center

Abstract

The Juvenile Justice system has gone through a series of evolutions which have made it vastly different from the adult system.  This includes a separate range on what ages someone is held responsible for the crimes they commit.  The role of punishment in the juvenile system has changes to reflect rehabilitation and diversion rather than punishment based that the adult system operates. In a further attempt to not label young offenders, the names of parts of the juvenile court process have been eased to reflect a less formal appearance. Judges also play a different role with juveniles, acting more as a guardian rather than a enforcer of the formal process. Another change is the role of police, with juvenile’s law enforcement is given a broader range of discretion to avoid formalizing punishment.

            The evolution of the criminal justice system has changed the treatment of juveniles from being treated exactly the same as adult offenders to having their own specific process. The early stages of this separation began with what are known as houses of refuge which came too existed in the early 1820s (Book 7). This was an early attempt to house juveniles at different locations than adult offenders. Further changes occurred that pushed help to establish the separation between the two systems, notably the first juvenile specific court which occurred in Illinois in 1899 (Cox, Allen, Hanser, Conrad 2008). This advancement gave juveniles a different standing when it comes to the criminal justice process. The system was helped to grow into what it is today through the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of 1967 which changes a number of things related to juveniles; Decriminalization of status offences, making court proceedings private, extension of due process rights, deinstitutionalization, diversification of striation and decentralization to a local level (Cox et al., 2008). Evolution to the Criminal Justice System has created specific differences between Juveniles and Adults which include; differences based on age, different forms of punishment, distinct court process, different role of the judge and different interaction with police in situations. While some differences are simply calling things something else, in some cases juveniles are a totally different set of people to consider.

                Unlike the adult system, the age at which time the offence was committed has an impact on the juvenile system. It varies from source to source on what age’s juveniles are considered responsible for crimes which they commit. One standard considers those under 8 unable to commit a crime, between 8-12 presumed incapable and over 12 capable of committing crimes. Once you’re an adult, you are responsible for committing crimes regardless of your age; the juvenile system does not do this. Generally until the mid teens, the juvenile process will try to work with kids and not waive their case to adult court unless they are near the age of an adult or the severity of the offence. I believe that this difference in being liable based on ages is in existence because of the maturity and growing levels of juveniles. Juveniles still have growing minds, they are learning about the world and what is right and wrong, keeping separate age brackets when deciding to charge a juvenile with a crime takes account the mental maturity of the juvenile and protect them from serious punishment when they did not know the severity of what they did.

                Another difference in the systems is what role punishment plays as a goal. The adult system is all about punishment and focuses very little efforts on rehab and other methods, the juvenile system however try to only use punishment as a last resort. In most cases a type of diversion program is tried first to help avoid the negative stigma involved with convictions. One huge example differences in punishments comes with the case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, which the death penalty for crimes committed fewer than eighteen became illegal (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, Banich 2009). I think that the difference exists to try to protect the juvenile from remaining on a bad path, using diversion as the main method rather than locking them up and forgetting about them plays to the idea that juveniles are still impressionable, and there is hope to rehabilitate them if the right system is in place.

                Similar to the punishment issue, the idea of having separate names for different process through juvenile court is another major difference. The juvenile court system is structured very similarly to the adult system but thing are wording is changed example, instead of arrest, juveniles are taking into custody, or indeed of trial it is an adjudication. I believe that this difference coincides with what is known as the labeling theory. Keeping the process seem less harsh, the juveniles do not get the negative stigma that would come with harsher wording of the process. Taking into account the labeling theory, if the process is more informal, then the juveniles do not get the criminalization pressure that is brought with the formal titles. This hopefully leads to the juveniles to not commit future criminal acts because of the changes in the labels, reducing their labeling as full blown criminals.

                The role of the judge in juvenile cases is also different than those in the adult system. The case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania in 1971, found that jury cases were not required for juveniles (Cox et al., 2008). Having more juvenile cases sought over by a judge, the role of the judge in the juvenile system is far different the adult system. The Parens Patrae idea can be applied here, juveniles are sought of as special, in cases which parents are not available, the state and the judge will work to act in the best interest of the child rather than just locking the child up. Although some judges are focused on the formal process, much work to try to serve what is in the juvenile’s best interests and this includes looking for alternative treatment. This difference exists because juveniles are a bit fragile, I believe that it is appropriate to use the system to nurture them a little rather than shipping them off to incarceration, having the judge have a more active part in treatment bring about the feeling of the system trying to help juveniles avoid delinquency rather than just punish them. 

                The role of police enforcement is different between juveniles and adults as well.  When making contact with adult offenders, the police tend have less discretion in some cases that those with juveniles. Rather than taking the juvenile immediately to booking, there are a number of different things officers can do which is not available in cases with adults. Some examples of this include verbal warnings, counseling the juvenile, and being able it involve parents in a informal solution rather than the formal process. This difference is another example on how the juvenile system is not there to punish but try to get the juveniles to do better, often parent involvement or informal processes can do just as much to solve the problem without all of the negative effects the formal system attaches.

                Overall there a wide variety of differences in the juvenile and adult system, many more than what are brought up here. The idea of different standards based on age, focus on diversion rather than punishment, avoiding the labeling of court proceedings, more informal supportive role of the judge and the discussion that is able to be used by law enforcement all help enforce the idea that unlike the adult system, juveniles should be rehabilitated and focus on avoiding delinquent behavior rather than just punishment.

A look at US Policy during the Cold War

Why and how did the United States chose to “fight” the Cold War and how did this strategy play out internationally and with what effects?

                The Cold War was the result of competing interest between America and the Soviet Union toward the end of the Second World War. The initial issue which brought the tension came about with deciding what to do with Poland after Germany had fallen. Truman had a problem with the Soviet Union creating a powerful communist government in Poland; ultimately Truman lost the issue at the Potsdam meeting (UN 701). Resulting from the Second World War, both countries had vast military might and with the research of nuclear weapons, which would have devastated the world if a direct conflict occurred.  As a result of this fear, rather than fight directly, a competition between America and the Soviet Union leading to a race to create spheres of influence became the battleground. American policy was adapted to help combat and ‘contain’ communism as a result.

                After World War Two, another war would have not been the best option, especially amongst two superpowers. As a result, Truman adopted a strategy of beating the Soviet Union at their own game, and contain them from expanding influence. The ‘war’ then changed to become about places of influence rather than a direct American/Soviet conflict. Expanding from this, Truman pushed for the idea to support regions in defense of communism expansion. Using this idea, the Truman Doctrine was enacted, to help send financial aid to Greece and Turkey to prevent communism from taking over in 1947 (UN 703). Further adding to the containment solution, the Marshal Plan became a essential part of United States foreign policy (Un 704). This ultimately aided in strengthening pro-western European government from being pushed over by a wave of communist influence. This allowed America to maintain a hold of support in Western Europe while the Soviet Union imposed its will in the East. Adding to the competing spheres of influence, the United States sought to make a military alliance with Western European countries to help defend from possible future threat resulting in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance which included twelve nations in 1949 (Un 707). NATO seemed to serve as a safeguard against a possible armed conflict with the Soviets. Similar to the Marshal Plan, and Truman Doctrine, NATO was a political move used by the United States to indirectly strengthen its position in the world against the Soviet Union.

                Along with the diplomatic measures to contain communism, the United States intervened in an effort to prevent communist expansion. Although tensions were high, the United States never fought the Soviet Union, instead fighting Soviet backed movements and aiding pro western governments, keeping up the idea expanding influence which helped America. The first of these conflicts occurred in Korea, where the communists north invaded the pro-western south in 1950 (Un 713). To support the idea of containing the spread of communism, the United States intervened on the side of the South. In essence America was able to save South Korea from being consumed by communist North Korea, but the involvement of China on the North’s behalf left the war as a stalemate. Surprisingly the Soviet Union never became involved in the conflict directly, but rather supported communist expansion indirectly. The next zone where influence became fought over came in Cuba.  Fidel Castro, a communist was able to take control of the Cuban government in 1959, America did not support the idea of a Soviet backed leader so close to its borders (UN 754). America continued its support of anti-communist forces with its backing of the Bay of Pigs incident which actually ended in complete failure. The situation in Cuba eventually escalated into the Cuban Missile Crisis which neither side moved the conflict to direct war.  Tensions were high, but America continued its support of containing communism.

                Vietnam became a test of how involved America would get in preventing the spread of communism. America put its support behind the south, “The United States helped establish a pro-American government in the south, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem” (UN 752). Continuing the idea of keeping a Soviet free world, America changed from financial support to military support of Vietnam in 1964 (UN 775). Again like in Korea, the American military was used in an attempt to stop communist expansion in a conflict between supportive nations rather than direct war the Soviet Union. After years of harsh fighting, American opinion shifted on the war, South Vietnam found itself alone in 1975 (UN 807). Despite a huge military effort, America actually failed to stop communism to spread in Vietnam, after American withdrawal, the communist north took control of the south.

                The overall stance America took in its confirmation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War followed the idea to contain communism and protect western spheres of influence. Truman set the stage of creating spheres of influence with the enacting of the Truman Doctrine and Marshal Plan, following along with the idea that communism can be stopped if anti-communist governments are supported properly. The containment even expanded to a more military containment, with America intervening in both Korea and Vietnam, one being a success, the other a failure. Ultimately America was able to compete with the Soviet Union for influence while avoiding a direct military conflict that could have been catastrophic because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the biggest success of American containment policy was the prevention of Western Europe from being dragged into Soviet influence immediately following World War Two. America was able to ensure a strong position in Europe by not standing by and letting communism spread, resulting in the creation of NATO which kept the Soviet Union in check. Although it was an unorthodox approach, consisting of both successes and failures, America was able to compete with the Soviet Union and fight the Cold War though diplomacy and influence in the world.

A history of American imperialism

The start of American imperialism can be traced back to how the country progressed in the post Civil War climate. The idea of Manifest Destiny can be related to the idea of imperialism, but once we had filled up the space within our own country, America looked abroad. At the same time, Europe was busy establishing colonies abroad and carving up Africa amongst them, Americans felt left out of colonizing. There was a need for America to expand to allow further trade, “American feared that their nation would soon be left out of all these potential markets” (Brinkley 499). It was felt that out of necessity the country needed to keep up and to do this we were required to expand. Alfred Mahan builds upon this with a thesis he presented in 1890 emphasizing the need for a sea power to control trade (Brinkley 499). With the country bordered by two gear oceans, he was right, looking to our neighbors across the sea was the way to go. This idea would carry over and become one of the centerpieces of American foreign policy that following presidents would work from.

            The first administration that worked to implement American expansion was that of Rutherford Hayes. Under Hayes, America was able to put itself into running for influence and power across the Pacific Ocean. The first step that was taken was to secure a naval base in Hawaii, allowing the U.S. Navy to firmly establish its power and dominance in the Pacific. As a result, we eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898, and were able to basically island hop from there to other areas of the Pacific (Brinkley 501). Hayes also worked to compete with European nations with American influence in Samoa. Like Hawaii, a naval base was created to support sea control over the region and eventually acquired Samoa in a joint deal with Germany and Great Britain (Brinkley 502). These first steps by Hayes not only increased American naval presence in the Pacific, but also allowed us to become a national player when it comes to dealing with abroad territories.

Grover Cleveland worked on this to even expand American colonial influence further. Although Cleveland appears to be more reactive to what is going on around him, he did follow suite with imperialism to a degree. To start things off, Cleveland got involved in a foreign dispute between Venezuela and Brittan, siding with the Latin America country over the British Empire (Brinkley 500). This seems to be the first step in defying European empires to better American influence abroad. The next issue Cleveland dealt with was the revolt that was occurring in Cuba, in this instance, Cleveland seemed very hesitant in becoming involved in the war, Spain being a big empire was dealing with a internal problem, but Cleveland’s hand was forced as a result of being insulted in the Depute do Lome Letter and the blowing up of the U.S.S Maine (Brinkley 506). Those two events caused Cleveland to react and as a result further American imperialism by warring with Spain. Through the war, America was able to explain our colonial power by taking directly from Spain; this is seen with the occupation of Puerto Rico, involvement with Cuba and also the taking of the Philippians. Although not blatantly imperialistic, Cleveland’s responses to external events lead to America’s expansion which would be build up upon following his administration.

Following Cleveland, the McKinley administration, also supporting an expansionist agenda but like Cleveland was pretty moderate with enacting expansion. One of the first issues McKinley had to deal with was the American occupation of the Philippians, he remained strong and was able to keep the territory as a result of the Treaty of Paris in 1898 (Brinkley 510). The other big issue regarding expansionism that McKinley dealt with was the European influence in China. Although McKinley is very hesitant when it comes to actually intervention and occupation, he does want to be allowed to trade with the region. McKinley did not want to occupy space in the region like what Europeans were doing, just to be allowed to trade freely and have a ‘open door’ with the region. The outbreak of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 forced McKinley’s hand to act in the situation. American intervention in China helped support and allow the ‘open door’ policy to be accepted by foreign nations (Brinkley 515). McKinley’s administration like Cleveland took a moderate approach to expansionism by responding to events rather than causing them, this all changed under Roosevelt.

Theodore Roosevelt was an avid supporter of America being a imperial empire. Before he was in power he was able to even work to make this reality when ordering the occupation of the Philippians during the Spanish American War (Brinkley 506). When he became president, his ideas became policy. Roosevelt wanted America to be able to compete, he saw it as our duty to spread our ‘civilization’ to those who were ‘uncivilized’ (Brinkley 553). Although he did not further expand, Roosevelt’s actions in ending the Japanese, Russian war helped to preserve a open system not dominated by any single country. The ultimate goal was to keep the Pacific not out of America’s reach, even sending a fleet near Japan as a show of force (Brinkley 554). Further, Roosevelt increased American influence in Latin America by following a policy of protecting the countries from European influence while furthering American investment. Roosevelt further worked to expand American control but orchestrating the Panama revolt from Colombia while constructing the Panama Canal to better America’s trade (Brinkley 556). In this situation, Roosevelt both served to influence politics of other nations but also work to expand America’s overall power and trade ability. Overall Roosevelt’s administration was the one that focused directly on spreading American influence abroad rather than reacting to events abroad.

The administration following Roosevelt, lead by William Taft also supported an American expansionist agenda but not to the extent that Roosevelt did. Overall Taft was limited to following up on keeping American influence up in the Caribbean and intervention in Nicaragua (Brinkley 557). After Taft, the expansionist agenda died off quite a bit, only being seen in a limited number of instances.

The administration of Woodrow Wilson did work to expand American influence but the times were changing away from colonialism. He continued policies to protect American influence in the Caribbean with intervention in Haiti and the Dominican Republic as well as purchasing the Virgin Islands (Brinkley 557). With the unrest in Mexico, Wilson seemed to continue pushing for American influence in the region but unlike other administrations, he did not jump in to the conflict head on, instead relied on supporting different regimes. American troops were sent to intervene slightly but Wilson never used them to push the issue, just to provide stability and prevent war (Brinkley 559). Wilson follows a different set of goals, rather than flexing American’s might, he rather uses it to provide peace and stability. This is further seen in America’s delayed involvement during World War One. Wilson does not enter the war until it is deemed necessary to, as a result of damaged trade and direct attacks by German u-boats (Brinkley 560).

These administrations saw the rise and fall of direct American imperialism. Resulting from the climate post Manifest Destiny, after sitting back and watching Europeans expand freely, American expansion came to effect. The Hayes administration set the groundwork for America to be a naval power in the Pacific. Cleveland and McKinley followed with policies that responded external events allowing for America to gain influence and power as a result. Imperialism peaked with the Roosevelt who was one of the biggest supports of the idea, leading to long-term American presence in Latin America. The movement changed by the time Wilson came to power, the world had changed. The actions of administrations leading up to that point were quite successful in achieving American dominance in foreign affairs and the global economy each in their own way of supporting that practice.