The United States of America has a massive prison population with high incarceration rates. The rates of imprisonment are more prominent in African-Americans and other people of color than in the majority white population. This year, there were massive demonstrations against police brutality in various cities after George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Such protests are not a recent phenomenon since the United States has experienced them several times in the past decades. Therefore, an elaborate reform of the criminal justice system is necessary because racially discriminatory acts against Blacks have a long history indicating an ongoing systemic issue.
A progressive change of the United States’ drug policy is a fundamental step in the restoration of the criminal justice system. One of the leading causes of the rapid increase in the prison population over the past decades was the Reagan Era change in drug policy enacted to combat a drug epidemic in the country. The police disproportionately arrested Black men and other people of color during this period. Even after various states legalized the use of Marijuana in recent years, inmates detained due to the possession of the drug are still serving long sentences. For there to be a long-standing change in the criminal justice system, a rethinking of the discriminatory drug policy is required.
A transformation in the policing of communities is also essential in achieving a better criminal justice system. Police officers need to be trained better in dealing with unarmed citizens without resorting to lethal weapons. The issue of police officers’ use of fatal force against unarmed African-Americans has led to many demonstrations against police brutality, but with little change. The conviction rates of the officers accused of cruelty remain low. Bringing the officers accused of misconduct to justice is the first step in regaining trust from the Black community and initiating a drastic reform in the criminal justice system.
To sum up, the United States of America requires the remodeling of its criminal justice system. One of the primary reasons for that is the fact that the Black community bears the brunt of the unfairness of the current system. Measures that can make it better, such as a change in the drug laws and an accountable police force, will substantially improve the lives of members of the country’s Black community.
It is important to note that one of the most problematic aspects of the modern criminal justice system is inherently discriminatory practices, which are based on one’s race, culture, or ethnicity. The justice system and the law themselves are not explicitly discriminatory, but there are several key limitations, which are related to socioeconomic status, communication, policing, and post-prison effects.
The criminal justice system is color-blind and class-blind, but one should be aware that the wealthy are more likely to have access to professional lawyers, whereas poor people have not. This directly and partially impacts race-based discriminatory practices since minority groups are more likely to have lower socioeconomic status than the majority. It is stated that “the experiences of poor and minority defendants within the criminal justice system often differ substantially from that model due to several factors, each of which contributes to the overrepresentation of such individuals in the system” (The Sentencing Project, 2018, para 3.). Therefore, there is a chain of effects where minatory groups are more likely to be poor, and thus, they have limited access to the pool of professionals who might be able to defend them.
Another discriminatory practice takes place in the very first stage of the criminal justice system, which is policing. It is stated that “in 2016, black Americans comprised 27% of all individuals arrested in the United States—double their share of the total population. Black youth accounted for 15% of all U.S. children yet made up 35% of juvenile arrests in that year” (The Sentencing Project, 2018, para. 8). In other words, the degree to which minority groups are put into the criminal justice process is higher than the rate for the majority. Under such a divergence between races and ethnicities, it is evident that minority individuals are more likely to enter the criminal justice process, which will also influence the prosecution and sentencing rates.
In addition to a large pool of factors, which contribute to the racial and cultural disparity, there are disadvantages manifested in policies and biased use of discretion. It is stated that “prosecutors are more likely to charge people of color with crimes that carry heavier sentences than whites. Federal prosecutors, for example, are twice as likely to charge African Americans with offenses that carry a mandatory minimum sentence than similarly situated whites” (The Sentencing Project, 2018, para. 24). In other words, there is an inherent bias to charge minority groups with more severe sentences, which impacts the legal outcome. Therefore, it should be noted that discriminatory and unfair practices are not only present in the entirety of the criminal justice process but also outside of it, which leads to a higher chance of arrests and incarcerations.
In conclusion, when charged with a crime, cultural, racial, and ethnic discrimination can occur through discriminatory policies, disadvantages among the poor, disadvantages among the minority groups, a higher acceptance rate to the criminal justice process, heavier charges, and more severe sentences. Thus, it is evident that it is a multifactorial and multidimensional problem, which is not inherent to a single aspect of the criminal justice process. The magnitude of the issue becomes substantial due to the cumulative effect of these practices and policies.
The incarceration process is among the most impactful aspects of the criminal justice system in the United States, which have long-lasting effects on individuals. There are evident ethnic and racial disparities when it comes to the rate of incarceration, and such differences are also present between the wealthy and the poor and uneducated. In the case of how the minority groups have been impacted by the incarceration process, the main drivers tend to be structural disadvantage, implicit bias, and policies.
It is important to note that it is impossible to pinpoint a single cause or driver of disparities when discussing incarcerations. It is stated that “explanations for disparities range from variations in offending based on race to biased decisionmaking in the criminal justice system, and also include a range of individual-level factors such as poverty, education outcomes, unemployment history, and criminal history” (Nellis, 2016, p. 9). In other words, there is a clear and direct connection between one’s education, race, and socioeconomic status being correlated with his or her likelihood of incarceration. There are three main causes of such disparities, which explain how different racial or ethnic groups are impacted by the United States incarceration system. These are structural disadvantages, implicit bias, and policies and practices, and the former is manifested in the broader fact of minority groups being more likely to live in poverty, experience socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and being exposed to a higher degree of violent crimes (Nellis, 2016, p. 11). Therefore, the environment in which minority groups reside makes these neighborhoods highly policed and arrested, which increases the flow of minority groups into the criminal justice process.
Moreover, one cannot ignore the role of implicit bias and the perception of minority groups in the criminal justice system, especially among key decision-makers. It is stated that “racial prejudice exerts a large, negative impact on punishment preferences among whites but much less so for blacks.36 Other research finds that assumptions by key decision-makers in the justice system influence outcomes in a biased manner” (Nellis, 2016, p. 10). In other words, African American individuals are more likely to be given more severe and heavier incarceration measures and conditions, which are not related to the objective factors, but rather the implicit bias of the decision-makers. Lastly, policies and practices also explain how different racial and ethnic groups have been impacted by U.S. incarceration processes. For example, it is stated that “though police stops alone are unlikely to result in a conviction that would lead to a prison sentence, the presence of a criminal record is associated with the decision to incarcerate for subsequent offenses, a sequence of events that disadvantages African Americans” (Nellis, 2016, p. 10). In other words, a community with a higher rate of socioeconomic vulnerabilities, poverty, and lack of education is kept incarcerated even after the first instance, which substantially increases the overall disparity level.
In conclusion, it should be noted that policies, implicit bias, and structural disadvantage are key reasons, which explain how different racial and ethnic groups have been impacted by U.S. incarceration processes. The lack of education and poverty further complicate the problem since these drivers create a violent and hostile environment, which reciprocally impacts the minority through unemployment and higher policing.
The concept of community policing is a strategic framework of policing work, which primarily focuses on a single community and building personal relationships with the members of that community. It is more problem-oriented and comprehensive than a traditional policing measure since the given measures emphasize the critical importance of trust and community relations. It enables to avoid perceptive hostility and distrust expressed by a community, which is highly useful for minority and immigrant communities.
One of the core aspects of community policing is an accentuation of trust-based relationship building as well as community-oriented objectives setting. It is stated that it “encourages police to find solutions for a multitude of community problems and concerns such as crime, fear of crime, quality of life, and neighborhood conditions” (Jack, Spates, & Saint, 2021, p. 4). In other words, the police become a source and driver of community empowerment rather than an object of hostility. For example, community policing enables the development of more meaningful and long-lasting relationships between the members of a community and law enforcement professionals. Thus, the individuals living in a target community or neighborhood are more likely to be cooperative and transparent, which directly affects the overall performance of police officers since many communication and social barriers can be overcome.
Moreover, community policing also impacts the law enforcement structure itself by increasing diversity and proper representation among law enforcement officers. Evidence suggests that “white officers are more likely than black officers to use force, especially in predominately black neighborhoods. White officers use force 60 percent more on average than black officers and use force with a gun twice as often” (Jack et al., 2021, p. 3). Therefore, regardless of the possible explanations for why white officers are more likely to use deadly force, diversity is critical not solely for virtuous reasons but also for functional and performance-based ones. In other words, community policing reinforces and promotes diversity among law enforcement officers, which enables more peaceful outcomes of confrontations between civilians and law enforcement agents.
However, there are also major drawbacks in regards to community policing, which are primarily due to improper implementation and lack of effective monitoring measures. The first potential pitfall of such an approach is police corruption since community policing enables a more autonomous scope of responsibilities allocated to community law enforcement officers. In other words, building relationships can have an adverse effect, where law enforcement agents become contributors or beneficiaries of the communities’ criminals since their approach enables close trust and relationship building rendering community policing ineffective. In addition, community policing might remain ineffective compared to traditional policing if the community’s hostility level is unbreachable and exceedingly high.
In conclusion, community policing can be categorized as a plausible measure if implemented correctly with strict control and regulation. The advantages of such an approach are manifested in the increased degree of trust between law enforcement officers and the members of a community, which promotes cooperativeness and collaboration. However, community policing can also become ineffective due to a possibility of corruption due to increased autonomy as well as unbreachable hostility of the community itself.
The most direct aspect of criminal justice system disparities primarily takes place during interactions of civilians with a law enforcement officer. Such an interaction can be either calm or peaceful but result in death and a fatal outcome. It should be noted that members of minority groups interact differently based on the racial and ethnic profiles of the involved parties. The potential reasons range from implicit reciprocal bias and stigma to logical and irrefutable facts regarding police brutality.
It is important to note that although all minority groups express specific differences during police interactions, the evidence points towards African Americans being the most divergent from other groups. It is stated that “African Americans were found to be more fearful and distrustful of law enforcement than Whites and Latinos” (Cintron et al., 2018, p. 379). The differences can be primarily found in the areas of stereotypes, alertness, and submissive behavior expressed through posture and other indicators (Cintron et al., 2018). African Americans’ interactions with police are found to be the most stressful and perceptively dangerous since the implicit bias and stereotyping are expressed from both sides reciprocally. Police officers, especially non-African American ones, are more likely to use deadly force during such interactions, and they are also more likely to approach the situations with an elevated degree of hostility (Jack et al., 2021). Subsequently, African Americans are more fearful and distressed during these interactions, which can also additively contribute to the escalation of the communication from peaceful to a hostile one.
Therefore, it is evident that the existing biases and stereotypes regarding police interactions with African Americans are substantiated by data. However, other minority groups, such as Latinos, can also be more submissive and fearful compared to White Americans, although not to the extent of African Americans. The most apparent difference between Whites and non-African American minority groups is manifested in the fact that the latter does not believe in their complaints about police officer misconduct reports resulting in proper measures (Cintron et al., 2018). In other words, White Americans tend to express the highest degree of confidence in their capability to impose ramifications on an officer if the latter exhibits misconduct. Latino Americans did not believe in the current police complaint system, which is why their exhibit submissive behavior regardless of whether or not an officer is exceeding the limits of his or her powers and professional duties.
The reasons for such differences, especially in the case of African Americans, are based on factual evidence, where these groups are more likely to experience higher hostility, risk of use of deadly force, and misunderstanding due to cultural barriers, communication barriers, and implicit bias. In addition, such a dynamic promotes a reciprocal response from the minority groups, where they are also more likely to be fearful and distressed, which makes law enforcement officers more alert and ready for confrontation. In other words, emotions critically influence the flow of police interactions, such as an arrest, where logical and calm instructive communication becomes unfeasible.
In conclusion, there are evident differences in interactions with police officers between minority groups and White Americans. The difference is manifested in a more fearful and distressing reaction, which is complemented by submissive behavior, alertness, and stereotyping. The case is the most problematic in regards to African Americans, where both parties have implicit biases and hostilities towards each other, which complicates the operation. Other minority groups are also more likely to express distrust in the police misconduct report system, whereas White Americans have the most faith in these processes. The reasons for such differential reactions are rooted in both factual evidence on police brutality as well as subsequent bias or perception, which catalyzes the chain reaction, sometimes leading to the use of deadly force.
I would like to note that the course was a valuable experience for me as I gained extensive knowledge concerning applied and academic research. I cannot say that my understanding has been changed, but it was considerably enriched. Clearly, I have always understood that applied research focuses on problems rather than trends and concepts. However, I learned a lot about the major aspects to focus on when implementing applied research. The discussions and collaborations were also helpful as I could analyze different perspectives on the studied issues. These different opinions helped me gain a deeper understanding of things that seemed simple or too difficult for me. The knowledge gained during the course will help me in my professional life in many ways. First, I will be able to implement research and understand various trends and issues. I will also be able to present the results of my research in an effective way. As for the further exploration of the subject, I would examine ways to enhance the validity and reliability of my research. We have addressed this problem, but I feel there are many more (simple and convenient) ways to ensure the validity of a study.
Applied Research Proposal
The applied research can be referred to as the use of research techniques developed within the field of academic research to address particular issues existing in different spheres. The applied research is not aimed at developing a theory or expanding existing ones, but it focuses on the application of existing theories to explore certain issues and equip people with the necessary evidence to come up with effective solutions. The applied research can describe an issue and identify its causes and effects. As far as my proposal is concerned, I believe I could implement my plan. My research addresses a serious issue, and it is associated with the use of sound research methods. I think the plan can become the basis for my future research.
As has been mentioned above, I have learned a lot about the applied research, but I still feel there are certain gaps in my knowledge. One of the questions I would like to raise is associated with data collection (recruiting, to be more precise). How can the researcher ensure the participation of the participants? Is monetary compensation the only effective tool? This question is specifically relevant when it comes to quantitative research that implies the focus on the proper representation of the population.
References
Ayiro, L. (2012). A functional approach to educational research methods and statistics. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Vito, G. F., Tewksbury, R., & Kunselman, J. C. (2014). Introduction to criminal justice research methods. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Designs are discerned as one of the methods of responding to questions that concern justice and criminality affairs. Research designs have become more and more complex as there is also the addition of federal case laws and regulations that touch on the law agencies. Therefore it is becoming more and more evident that the threats to validity play a major role in the research and experimental designs. These threats can affect the outcome of any research. When talking about experimental designs we have to touch on the importance of validity. We have to first define validity, it has been quoted that validity is the accuracy that can be found when taking down the measurement. We have to conclusively find out whether or not the instrument, supposed to measure is performing its task in measuring the set variables. Problems within criminal justice research have been found in the form of threats to validity (Maxfield & Babbie, 2009). Threats to validity have a way of influencing the results and could be both external and internal.
Internal and External Threats
Internal threats are more concerned with the result of the observational findings. External threats manifest themselves through the production of unique results and it is suitable for group research and is more targeted. When committed to research on criminology one cannot escape from the fact that several threats are included in both internal and external threats to validity. In internal threats, we have to factor threats such as history, the process of maturing of persons to become adults, statistical regression among others.
Threats to external validity are identified and categorized by several leading researchers as effects from testing, selection bias, the consciousness of being studied, and interference from multiple treatments. These threats have been manifested much more when research is done in a more carefully controlled condition. Assessing these threats is better done through the replication of studies that had exploited the same style or methodology. Replication enables researchers to get a more accurate picture or results as outcomes from one study may not be attributed to the external validity threats that we have mentioned above. A famous case of replication was noted through a study conducted in the late eighties where an experiment known as the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. This experiment was repeated in several cities all across the country. The outcomes that were derived from the experiments showed that the results could be similar and contradictory when compared from city to city (Maxfield & Babbie, 2009).
All this is to be found in an experimental design. It is a well-known fact that one has to have a thorough knowledge of statutes that are both for the state and also the federal statutes that exist. Therefore the importance of validity and occurrence of threats should be taken to account (Maxfield & Babbie, 2009). Threats to external validity are identified and categorized by several leading researchers as effects from testing, selection bias, the consciousness of being studied, and interference from multiple treatments.
Conclusion
Experimental design in the field of criminal justice is rare because it is difficult to distinguish whether or not it is legal to carry out the process of random selection into control groups as the subjects under research prisoners or other people associated with the defendants such as the agency personnel (Maxfield & Babbie, 2009). It is considered unethical to promote a select group with an experimental action while denying the other group (control group) of the treatment. It is the job of a high-quality impact valuation, to minimize threats to validity hence any researcher needs to identify that each design differs from another in the assumptions that are made and the problems that could undercut these assumptions. There is also the general control the researcher has over the exposure of the program. These are just a few of the points that should be considered to come up with more feasible results from any criminal justice research.
References
Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2009). Basics Of Research Methods For Criminal Justice And Criminology. 2nd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The use of mathematics in criminal justice is a very efficient and effective way of tracking down criminal activities. For instance, a ballistic expert can make use of forensic science in the study and critical analysis of firearms and bullets. In fact, the study of the path followed by bullets after shooting from firearms is all under ballistics. Additionally, an expert in this field will apply the scientific knowledge with basics in mathematics to establish the unique characteristics of the bullets after they have been released from the guns.
Statistics in criminal justice
The use of mathematics in criminal justice is a very efficient and effective way of tracking down criminal activities. For instance, a ballistic expert can make use of forensic science in the study and critical analysis of firearms and bullets. In fact, the study of the path followed by bullets after shooting from firearms is all under ballistics. Additionally, an expert in this field will apply the scientific knowledge with basics in mathematics to establish the unique characteristics of the bullets after they have been released from the guns (Florida Department of Law Enforcement 2008).
The knowledge applied here is purely scientific and therefore the police can hire the services of such experts to assist in the investigation of crime. In the course of the analysis, the bullets remains which were used at the crime scene are quantitatively assessed (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). This may involve the examination of guns used, the shell casings of the used bullets as well as the broken small pieces of the bullets. From these remainders, a mathematical model based on probability and statistics is used to give hint on the make of a specific weapon used. These procedures are encompassed in the process known as ballistic fingerprinting (Enhow 1999). The particular marks left on the used firearms are essential in correlating the firearm which was used at the scene of crime. Additionally, the likely distance from the shooting point can be determined. Moreover, the specific angle through which the bullet was shot is crucial in this analysis. The trajectory of the fired bullet is then determined using laser technology.
When investigations are being carried out, the blood spatter patterns are used as useful hints to the progression of the crime. This is achieved by relating the knowledge on arithmetic progression and number series to the blood patterns at the scene of crime.
The temperature of the body of the decreased person can also be mathematically used to establish the likely time of death of the crime victim.
Relating to statistics in a practical case, we take the case of Florida. In the year 2008, it was announced by the State’s Department of Law enforcement that violent crime had gone down by 2.4 percent for the initial half of that year (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). This report was on the basis of the data that was collected and submitted by 406 agencies that were involved in law enforcement for the criminal offenses that were reported to be committed between the month of January and June. Such data or statistics indicate that great efforts have been carried out by the law enforcement agencies to curb crime in the region.
The data is seen to be accurate since it is collected by several agencies; 406 in number. As a result, this shows a very close relationship between mathematics and criminal justice. The two cannot be separated when actual crime count is to be put into consideration. It is through the mathematical knowledge that clearly marked efforts which are aimed at the rigorous identification of crime rate are carried out by the law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice field (Florida Department of Law Enforcement 2008).
Conclusion
As it has been seen, there exists a strong relationship between mathematics and the discipline of criminal justice. The professionals in criminal justice may regularly require the knowledge of ballistic experts and forensic science to execute their duties more effectively. It is through this knowledge that some statistics are established in relation to particular criminal activities.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010). Data Collections.
Humans are capable of extreme cruelty and great compassion (Song 12). This is true and has been exhibited throughout the history of mankind. Numerous wars, rebellions, and revolutions have been reported all through history. These acts usually result in the casualty of many individuals, most of whom are innocent civilians comprising mainly of women and children. The end of the Second World War saw the establishment of international structures such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice that aimed at safeguarding the rights of all individuals and ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions in an event of war.
From a critical point of view, it is evident that the international criminal court system has not achieved its overall aim of deterring and preventing crimes and atrocities. There is a school of thought that argues that one of the main reasons behind this failure is due to the limited jurisdiction that the court has about the cases that it can preside over. This paper will thus critically analyze whether International Criminal Justice (ICJ) is capable of deterring and preventing atrocities in a bid to determine whether or not the court has proper jurisdiction. To realize its goal, this paper will first focus on two types of crimes that the court can preside over; genocide and crimes against humanity. In this respect, a critical analysis shall be conducted on these crimes concerning the history, development, and they are handled by International Criminal Justice. Furthermore, this paper will also expound on the elements of these crimes, how they are committed, and the impact that they have on society at large. Based on the discussions presented, a conclusion will be arrived at on the effectiveness of International Criminal Justice in preventing and deterring and atrocities.
The Development of International Justice System
It was critical to ensure that the Nazi regime and its allies are held responsible for their actions during the Second World War. It also emerged that this regime had carried out ethnic cleansing of the Jew population in various parts of Europe that Germany had occupied. It was estimated that approximately 6 million Jews were killed as a result (Harwood 1). It was thus critical for the allies to ensure that justice is served, hence the establishment of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg and Tokyo.
To further safeguard human rights, the United Nations Charter was developed as a tool for prohibiting aggressive warfare (Heselhaus 5). Additionally, the Human Rights Law was also developed and mandated by nations to safeguard the rights of their citizens as well as individuals within their territories. The International Humanitarian Law was also introduced to safeguard vulnerable individuals in the times of war and finally, the International Criminal Law was developed as a means of putting into account the individuals involved in atrocities and aggressive acts of crime (Safferling 1470). These considerations would have had a drastic impact on the deterrence and prevention of atrocities and violent crimes all around the globe. However, the onset of the Cold War put a halt to the development of International Criminal Law. The process of developing a strong International Justice System only commenced again after the end of the Cold War (Mieth 1). At the present moment, there have been a total of nine international criminal courts and tribunals (Smeulers 8). They include:
The International Military Tribunal (IMT)
The International Military Tribunal of the Far East (IMTFE)
The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY)
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)
The Special Panel of Dili in East Timor (SPD)
The ICC has always been considered an important milestone in the development of international criminal law after the development of the United Nations and the adoption of the United Nations Charter (Werle 1). Even though its development commenced after the Second World, it was not until July 1998 that a statute was passed in Rome that enabled nations to become parties to this court (Baros 58). Consequently, the ICC officially commenced its operations on 1st July 2002 only after the 60th nation had ratified the Roman statute. As of 2014, the nation has a total of 122 state parties that have recently increased to 124 (Sadat 1).
The International Criminal Tribunals (ICTs) have been given the jurisdiction to preside over four different groups of crime. First, they have the mandate to preside over genocide crimes (Song 4). This crime is common in almost every part of the globe and aims at attacking and killing individuals based on their ethnicity, nationality, racial background, or religion (Schabas 14). They also have the mandate to preside over crimes against humanity (Safferling 1470). This includes acts such as rape, murder, torture, slavery, imprisonment, and so on against the civilian population, especially with regards to women and children (Nkansah 75). The third group of crimes is war crimes that include the use of child soldiers, torture and killing of civilians and political prisoners as well as attacking places of worship, hospitals, historical monuments, and so on. The final jurisdiction is against the crime of aggression. As asserted earlier, this paper will only focus on genocide and crimes against humanity.
Genocide
As asserted earlier, genocide is one of the crimes that the international criminal law has the jurisdiction to preside over. Genocide, as an act, is characterized by the denial of the right to existence, through extermination or otherwise of individual groups of human beings. Genocide as a term is relatively new and was only coined after the Second World War. Before this, terms such as massacre and crimes against humanity were used to describe what we refer to as genocide today (Cryer et al. 205). In 1944, Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide, deriving it from two Greek words; geno referring to tribe and caedere referring to the act of killing, to refer to the deliberate act of targeting and killing specific groups of individuals based on their racial background, tribe, religion or ethnicity to exterminate them completely (Cryer et al. 205). At the present moment, the most accurate definition of the term genocide as used by the ICC and other international courts and tribunals is found in Article II of the Genocide Convention and describes it as any of the acts below conducted with an intent of eliminating the existence of a specific group of individuals based on their religion, race, ethnicity, or nationality (Cryer et al. 205):
Killing individuals who are members of this group.
Instilling physical or mental harm to group members.
Exposing the group to extreme physical conditions to destroy it partly or as a whole.
Developing and implementing measures that aim at preventing the birth of newborns among group members.
Transferring the children of group members to a different group with the use of force.
At this point, however, it is critical to note that not all acts that are committed with the intent of exterminating a group as a whole or in part will amount to an act of genocide. It is only the acts contained in Article II of the Genocide Conviction that the ICC will consider as an actus reus of Genocide (Cryer et al. 213). Most importantly, this act does not need to result in the death of many individuals, even though the term victims have been used in the plural, but if any of these acts refer to the death of even one individual within the group, then the ICC will consider such acts as genocide.
One of the conditions that result in an act to be considered as genocide is the killing of a member. However, this term in itself has been considered controversial, especially with regards to its application in trying individuals against the crime of genocide by the ICC and other international courts and tribunals. In English, the term “kill” is used to refer to an act that results in the death of an individual (Cryer et al. 214). The ICC has directly adopted this definition and as a result, there has always been controversy to its application, especially with regards to the circumstances that led to the death of the said individual. Questions such as were the cause of death intentional, an act of accident, or an act of negligence usually comes up and has detrimental effects in the manner and direction a trial will take place. It is as a result of this fact that the ICC concluded that an act can only amount to genocide if the act of killing a group member, part of the group, or the entire group was intentional (Cryer et al. 205).
While most individuals usually relate the act of genocide with mass killings, there are other factors that Article II of the Genocide Convention considered as being consistent with the crime itself. One of these acts is inflicting serious bodily or mental harm to individuals who are part of the targeted group. The ICTR, for instance, considered sexual violence and rape as integral aspects of the Rwandan genocide (Cryer et al. 213). In the Eichmann case, on the other hand, the process of deporting victims, housing them in transit camps, and in ghettos, their enslavement and deprivation of human rights had tremendous physical and mental impacts that resulted in their overall death and destruction (Cryer et al. 214). These acts constitute genocide because they resulting in the deprivation and degradation of human rights as a result of exposing the victims to inhumane conditions and torture.
It is common for individuals who have the intention of committing an act of genocide to expose their victims to extreme physical conditions as a means of physically wearing them down before ultimately killing them. During the Holocaust, for instance, Jews and other targeted groups worked in concentration camps with minimal food, poor shelter, and extreme conditions as a means of slowly wearing them down before their demise. Even though the holocaust was not considered as an act of genocide because the term had not been coined at the time, its trial proceedings and outcomes were used to set the guidelines that were adopted by the international criminal law in preventing and ensuring such acts are not committed in the contemporary world and if they are, the procedures and guidelines that will be used in trying the perpetrators for their actions.
Another point of contention with this type of crime is the group that it protects. From the definition, it is clear that an act can only be considered as a crime of genocide if the targeted group comprise of either individual from a given race, ethnic background, nation, or religion. These are considered as protected groups (Cryer et al. 208). It is perhaps due to this fact that this law has always been criticized due to its narrow focus on the groups that it protects. There have been attempts to increase the range of groups that this law can protect with the suggestion of including political and other social groups, but these attempts have never been successful.
At the same time, it has been difficult to classify victims within the already set protected groups. During the ICTR, for instance, it was difficult to distinguish the Hutu from the Tutsi since they both were Rwandese citizens and shared a similar language and cultural practices. These two groups were only differentiated after it was found that Rwandese citizens needed to carry their national identification cards with them at all times and these cards clearly defined the ethnic background of an individual as either Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa (Cryer et al. 210). It is as a result of the difficulties and challenges presented in this segment that affects the overall ability and efficiency of the international criminal law to deter and prevent the crime of genocide.
Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes against humanity are considered as being as old as humanity itself. However, this term started gaining popularity during the 20th century. Its first application in history was by the governments of Britain, France, and Russia (The Allies) who condemned the acts of the Turkish government against the Armenian population (Cryer et al. 230). Based on its act of crimes against humanity, the Allies asserted that members of the Turkish government will be held responsible for their crimes against humanity towards a civilian population. However, it was not until after the end of the Second World War that the first individuals were tried and persecuted on crimes against humanity charges during the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo (Cryer et al. 230). During these trials, crimes against humanity were defined as:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution or connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. (ICD 3)
After the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials, the progress of developing effective and efficient international law systems commenced. As a result, the International Law Commission (ILC) was charted by the then newly set up United Nations to develop laws and regulations that will aim at protecting mankind from deliberate acts that affect peace and promote insecurity. The ILC was to use the judgment and the outcomes of the IMT trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo as the basis of developing these new laws and regulations. Five decades down the line, this body came up with a proper definition of crimes against humanity; a definition that is currently accepted all around the world. It defined crimes against humanity as:
Murder, extermination, torture, enslavement, persecution on political, racial, religious or ethnic grounds, institutionalized discrimination, arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population, arbitrary imprisonment, rape, enforced prostitution and other inhuman acts committed in a systematic manner or on a large scale and instigated or directed by a Government or by any organization or group. (ICD 6)
Even though these definitions seem to have a lot of similarities to the IMT definition, it is evident that the 1996 definition states that the purported criminal acts can be committed on or before an event of war. This is a critical consideration since it establishes the fact that the inhumane acts need not be conducted in nexus to armed conflict. This is a critical consideration as it shows the evolution of the laws of this crime. In the ICTY, for instance, the IMT definition of crimes against humanity was applied and thus only the inhumane acts that were conducted before or during the war in the former Yugoslavia were considered and tried in these proceedings (Smeulers 22).
ICTR, on the other hand, applied the current definition of crimes against humanity and made it not mandatory for these crimes to have been committed before or during an armed conflict, but instead, they had to be systemic acts directed towards a civilian population (Smeulers 25). It is therefore evident that the fact that the conflict in Rwanda was internal, the resultant acts of crime would not have qualified to be considered as acts of genocide if the nexus to war approach was used in the definition of the crime of genocide.
Furthermore, inhumane acts need not be conducted in a discriminatory manner for them to be considered as crimes against humanity (Cryer et al. 235). During the ICTY proceedings, the discriminatory approach was used to ensure that consistency is achieved with the Nuremberg trials. However, the ICTY Appeal Chamber and the ICTR eliminated the discriminatory approach towards these attacks. Another area of contention in this type of crime is the term “attack”. In other forms of crime, this term is used to refer to armed forces. However, under the war against human crimes criteria, this term refers to broader forms of conduct of acts that go against the stipulations of the international customary law and can include acts such as mistreatment of the civilian population (Cryer et al. 237). Consequently, there needs to be at least more than one attack or more than one victim of an act to be considered as a crime against humanity. However, these attacks need not be similar, conducted by the same individuals or affiliated groups, or the requirement of any form of relationship among the victims.
Finally, the victims of crimes against humanity have to be from any civilian population. This not only includes the attack of the civilian population of an enemy state but also attacks by a state or statesmen against their subjects. This makes the national affiliation of a civilian to be irrelevant with regards to this type of crime. There has also been contention with the definition of the words civilian and population concerning the crimes against humanity. Following the stipulations of this law, the term civilian is used to describe individuals who are not combatants while the term population is used to refer to the large body of victims of specific attacks (Cryer et al. 241).
There have however been arguments that certain attacks on military personnel should be considered as crimes against humanity. Antonio Casse, for instance, argued that the attack of military personnel outside combat situations should be considered as crimes against humanity (Cryer et al. 241). However, these arguments have never been successful since attacks on human populations can only be considered as war crimes if they targeted population comprised of civilians. However, there have been exceptions to this rule in several cases. For instance, if a certain population is attacked and mainly comprised of civilians with a few military personnel, it will be considered as a crime against humanity. Consequently, the term civilian also accommodates all those individuals who are entirely not taking part in the attacks in the event when the purported acts were committed. This includes military personnel and other combatants who might have been decommissioned or not taking part in the attack because they might be captured or injured.
The Role of International Criminal Law in Preventing and Deterring Genocide and Crimes against Humanity and the Challenges it Faces
ICJ uses different approaches such as deterrence, timely intervention, stabilization, and normalization to prevent the occurrence of future crimes. No standard method has been developed to measure deterrence (Song 6). Furthermore, it has been difficult for ICJ systems to determine the impact of deterrence in these kinds of crimes due to the unique nature of every case, especially given the fact that their historical and political backgrounds (Song 7). Atrocity crimes have varied causality factors and hence it is difficult to pinpoint a single one as the cause of deterrence.
However, the effects of deterrence are present and have played a significant role in reducing atrocities all around the world. For instance, the ICC has issued arrest warrants to high profile individuals such as heads of states (Ginsburg 500). Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya are prime examples. This act was influential in preventing the eruption of violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo during its November 2011 elections largely due to the prosecution of politicians and civilians by the ICC in Kenya as a result of their involvement post-election violence in Kenya (Song p. 7). This act has thus proved that every individual, irrespective of his/her socio-political status, is accountable to his/her actions before the ICC and other international court systems (Sikkink and Kim 270).
Timely intervention is an approach used by the ICC, more specifically, by the Prosecutor, to threats of crimes that have been detected at an early stage (Song 7). Under his/her preliminary examination role, the Prosecutor constantly monitors developments that take place across member states of the ICC. Another aim of the ICJ system is to ensure that long-term peace and stability are realized in addition to punishment. ICJ systems extensively use the stabilization approach to realize this goal (Song 8). From research, it is evident that recurrent violence comes along due to acts of vengeance by victims of violent crimes and atrocities (Keller 195). The World Development Report that was released by the World Bank in 2011 pointed out transitional justice as one of the main ingredients of overcoming recurring violence in any given setting (The World Bank 166).
Therefore, to deter such acts, the ICC heavily relies on the participation of victims, not exclusively as witnesses, but also as actors in the proceedings of cases that they have been affected in one way or the other with special emphasis on women and children (Baumgartner 410). This approach came about as a result of the failure of the ICTY and ICTR to connect with the victims as their only interaction with these courts were as witnesses of the crimes that were being persecuted based since these courts mainly focused on retributive and not restorative justice (Schabas 535). Retributive justice has proven to be an effective tool in deterring future crime since it not only punishes the guilty parties but also ensures that the views of the victims are considered in deciding cases and also in the reconciliation process.
Through its normalization approach, ICJ systems have been able to develop approaches that aim at internalizing legal and moral norms that make the crimes stipulated under the Roman statute and criminal courts and tribunals punishable and unacceptable within the global society in a bid to protect the fundamental human rights and dignity hence deterring crime (Ambos 65). To ensure this is achieved, there has been an emphasis on proper education, democracy, and adherence to the terms of set treaties are critical considerations that need to be put in place. The complementarity approach by the ICC, for instance, aims at ensuring that all ICC crimes are punishable under their national laws and as such local/territorial courts will have the mandate to investigate and prosecute violations of humanitarian law (Ambos 65).
Despite its goal of deterring and preventing future crimes and atrocities, some arguments have been presented indicating that the international justice system incapable of achieving this goal. The fact that this system is highly dependent on cooperation among member states makes its operation difficult, especially with regards to the enforcement of court orders such as warrants of arrest, provision of evidence, and so on (Ambos 59). The ICC and ICTs do not have their police force or law enforcement agencies and as such, they rely exclusively on the efforts of member states to perform these acts on their behalf. For instance, the ICC has an active warrant of arrest against the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, who has been present in nations that fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC but respective governments have made no arrests.
The fact that International Criminal Justice cannot be applied universally also diminishes the role played by this system in deterring future atrocities and violent crimes. For instance, even though 124 nations have ratified the Roman statute and are now parties to the ICC, approximately 40% of the nations in the globe are not members (Sadat 1). This includes big powers such as the United States of America, Russia, and China who do not recognize the existence of the ICC (Palmer 2). This fact greatly undermines the global operation of the court.
There is also the school of thought that believes that ICJ systems are incapable of achieving absolute deterrence. This phenomenon occurs merely because the justice system, in general, cannot completely get rid of criminal activities in a given setting because criminals tend to breach the law and the rights of other individuals despite the presence of legal sanctions that can be imposed to them based on their activities (Ambos 66). With this in mind, supporters of this school of thought do believe that the deterrent nature of the ICC and ICTs is important but limited. Instead, it is argued that the Criminal Justice System should aim to neutralize actions of the perpetrators through restraining and suppressing violent violations other than focusing on deterring prospective violations.
Conclusion
Genocide and crimes against humanity have had severe impacts on the human population. To safeguard mankind from these sufferings, the international criminal law has developed rules and procedures that have resulted in the incorporation of courts and other judicial systems such as the ICC to ensure that basic human rights are recognized and respected. However, after critical analysis, it is evident that international criminal law has weaknesses that affect its ability to deter future crimes and atrocities. Therefore, to prevent and deter future crimes, and atrocities use deterrence, international criminal law needs to improve its approaches towards timely intervention, stabilization, and normalization. Through its operations, however, international criminal law has proven that it can prevent and deter future acts of Genocide and crimes against humanity.
Works Cited
Ambos, Kai. Prosecuting International Crimes at the National and International Level: Between Justice and Realpolitik. Springer, 2007.
Baros, Marcus. “The Establishment of the International Criminal Court: Institutionalizing Expedience?” Hertfordshire Law Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, pp. 58-72.
Baumgartner, Edward. “Aspects of Victim Participation in the Proceedings of the International Criminal Court.” International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 90, no. 870, 2011, pp. 409-40.
Cryer, Robert, et al. An Introduction to International Law and Procedure. Cambridge Printing Press, 2010.
Ginsburg, Tom. “The Clash of Commitments at the International Criminal Court.” Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2009, pp. 499-514.
Harwood, Richards. “Overview of the Holocaust: 1933-45.” Anti-Defamation League, 2012. Web.
Keller, Lillian. “Seeking Justice at the International Criminal Court: Victims’ Reparations.” Thomas Jefferson Law Review, vol. 29, no. 1, 2014, pp. 189-218.
Nkansah, Lydia. “International Criminal Justice in Africa: Some Emerging Dynamic.” Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 4, no. 2, 2011, pp. 74-84.
Palmer, Edward. “International Criminal Justice and Southeast Asia: Approaches To Ending Impunity for Mass Atrocities.” Asia Pacific Issues, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 1-8.
Roberts, Albert. “Lives and Statistics: Are 90% of War Victims Civilians?” Survival, vol. 52, no. 3, 2011, pp. 115-136.
Sadat, Leila. “The International Criminal Court: Past, Present, and Future.” WUSTL, 2014. Web.
Safferling, Charles. “Can Criminal Prosecution be the Answer to massive Human Rights Violations?” German Law Journal, vol. 5, no. 12, 2014, pp. 1469-88.
Schabas, William. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Schabas, William. “Victor’s Justice: Selecting “Situations” at the International Criminal Court. John Marshall Law Review, vol. 53, no. 1, 2010, pp. 535-52.
Sikkink, Kathryn and Hun Kim. “The Justice Cascade: The Origins and Effectiveness of Prosecutions of Human Rights Violations.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, pp. 269-85.
Smeulers, Alette. “65 Years of International Criminal Justice: Facts and Figures.” International Criminal Law Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 7-41.
Song, Sang-Hyun. “From Punishment to Prevention: Reflection on the Future of the Criminal Justice System.” ICC, 2012. Web.
The World Bank. “World Development Report 2011: Conflict Security and Development.” OKR, 2011. Web.
Capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues in the United States of America. Most Americans believe that death penalty is the best punishment for murderers. However, capital punishment should be abolished in the United States.
Even though some people are heartless, there are a few reasons as to why the death sentence should not be given.
Firstly, this punishment is offered in a skewed manner. Consequently, most of the convicts facing the death penalty are blacks or Latinos who have mostly killed whites.
Secondly, it has been proven that capital punishment does little to curb crime.
Finally, a good number of people in the death row are innocent. This paper is, therefore, a critique of Cynthia Tucker’s article on the death penalty.
The question posed by Cynthia Tucker in the article is whether the criminals in America deserve the death penalty or not. Author’s answer is “No”. In this article, Tucker argues that capital punishment serves no good and is inconsequential.
According to her, capital punishment does not prevent people from committing crimes. She supports these claims by arguing that America should be a crime-free country by now. This is because the criminal justice system has applied capital punishment for a long time.
The article also proceeds that capital punishment does not apply equally to all. To say the least, there has been inequality in the American justice system for a long time. Surprisingly, nowadays, most death row convicts are still blacks and Latinos sentenced for having killed whites.
Therefore, it is very rare to find the likes of John William King in this list. For that reason, Tucker believes that there is no equity and fairness as far as the death penalty is concerned. For centuries, the criminal justice system has taken the lives of black and Latino people.
Accordingly, those who take such persons’ lives go unpunished or get a lighter punishment than those who kill a white person. In fact, getting a capital punishment for killing a black or Latino person is rare.
Most capital punishment victims are also people faced with one or more forms of social injustices. In the article, Tucker states that many death row inmates are poor, dumb and marginalized. Therefore, criminals from a higher social class often go unpunished for similar crimes.
For instance, the educated and highly connected individuals escape the capital punishment in most instances. According to Tucker, William Lumpkin is a typical case. Lumpkin escaped capital punishment after beating Stan White to death with a hand bag.
This was because he was a lawyer and his family had connections with the Supreme Court. However, John William King was tried quickly and sentenced to death.
This was because he came from a lower social class. John William King’s case was mounted by the prosecutor in five days and the jury deliberated for only two and half hours before coming up with the verdict. To many, he did not get a fair hearing.
The article also affirms that capital punishment has had a tormenting effect on the innocent. According the study, seventy eight innocent people have been released after being sentenced to death. This means that some of those people were innocent.
Tucker reiterates that errors in the criminal justice system have abruptly ended the lives of many innocent people. However, though the Criminal Justice Department has acknowledged flaws in the FBI forensic labs, little has been done to notify the defendants (National Whistle Blowers Center (NWBC)).
Additionally, only a few of the affected cases have been reviewed by a task force established to find the truth in these cases. However, the findings of this task force are yet to be made public (NWBC). The effects of a flawed and inconsiderate justice system are too much to handle.
This article clearly states that wrongful conviction of even a single person should not be tolerated. This is because these convictions make law-abiding citizens realize that they are only a step away from their maker. It also compels people to think that the wrongful convicted person is in the same league with murderers.
Many people believe that the death penalty is the best punishment for people perceived to be murderers. However, people should know that most of these rulings are flawed. For instance, it has been proved that the FBI forensic lab could be wrong in its investigations (NWBC).
Therefore, most people have been convicted using flawed evidence. In addition, whites hardly receive the death penalty. This means that this punishment is skewed towards the blacks and Latinos. As a result, there is no guarantee on the fairness of the death penalty.
Moreover, a good number of people in the death row may be innocent. These reasons are, therefore, enough to do away with the death penalty. There is no way the criminal justice system can provide justice using such injustices. For that reason, to clean the criminal justice system, the death penalty must be abolished.
Works Cited
National Whistle Blowers Center. FBI Whistleblower First Exposed Forensic Flaws: Frederic Whitehurst Vowed to Help Wronged Defendants. n.d. Web.
The modern world is notable for its cultural diversity: people of different backgrounds and beliefs communicate, interact, and live together. However, they do not always get on well. Discrimination is one of the most pressing problems within the society that pertains to numerous spheres, and the present-day criminal justice system is not an exception. To improve the situation and achieve fairness, some changes have been introduced recently.
This paper examines the Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, the new document aimed at the development of a new approach to equality, in the context of the FBI’s activity. The reasons for the modification, its implementation, and the attitude towards the change are discussed. Finally, the assessment of the results is carried out.
The shooting death of Michael Brown provoked an outcry and demonstrated that attention should be drawn to racial issues and, more broadly, equality regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, and so on. Under these circumstances, Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, announced the release of the updated Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance intended to create diligent new standards and robust safeguards (Jawando and Parsons par. 3).
The previous document, the Department of Justice’s 2003 Guidance, concentrated on the racial profiling practice as the unacceptable measure. As a criterion in “conducting stops, searches, and other law enforcement investigative procedures,” it proved to be ineffective and wrong (U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Regarding the Use of Race 2). However, other factors, for example, religious identity, were not considered: people could be discriminated against on grounds other than race.
In comparison, the nowadays document focuses on different issues, namely race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity (U.S. Department of Justice Guidance for Federal Law 1). As the document implies, these characteristics may not be used in relation to spontaneous law enforcement decisions while other types of activities allow their usage in order to detect crimes. Thus, the recent guidance is more detailed and extensive than its antecedent.
The document introduced by DOJ refers to different agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Even before the implementation of the revised guidance, the organization represented by the director, James B. Comey, expressed doubt that the new guidelines would incorporate changes to the FBI daily practice because the FBI was already in compliance with the suggested measures (Phelps par. 3).
It may be considered a sort of passive resistance: FBI did not see the relevance of the new document in terms of its work and demonstrated that they valued equality without any fiat. Later on, the agency’s activities de facto remained the same and continue to be identical to the old conditions now. As a result, the FBI frequently becomes the object of criticism since communities under the FBI’s jurisdiction are “mapped” according to people’s race, religion, or national origin as before (Phelps par. 7). However, the organization explains this issue by the necessity to know the neighborhoods and identify potential assistance to law enforcement. In other words, the implementation of the guidance did not produce any actual changes.
In connection with the new DOJ document, society expected the FBI as well as other law enforcement agencies to become more attentive to racial, gender, religious, and other issues. However, the current situation is far from being perfect. One can state that the public response is negative to a greater extent, and the revised guidance still meets with substantial resistance from ordinary people and legal and civil rights organizations.
Advancing Justice-LA, one of the largest legal and civil rights organizations for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, exemplifies this tendency: they express their disappointment concerning the DOJ’s guidance (Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles par. 1). According to their opinion, the document prescribes targeting certain communities and groups under the guise of the common advantage. Consequently, the FBI infiltrates mosques and other places “through unscrupulous informants in thinly-based “national security” investigations that are often formulated after the fact” (Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles par. 3).
It is often estimated that the FBI and other organizations use profiling in the name of “national security,” but they actually go beyond the verge of their powers and address humiliating and harmful practices that make people feel less safe (The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance par. 4). In fact, religious issues have become more urgent nowadays. War on terror also illustrates this statement: residents of Arab and Muslim communities are regularly searched and interrogated by the FBI for the sole reason they belong to these neighborhoods. Thus, the new guidance does not work.
To sum it up, the necessity to enhance the criminal justice system and change the present-day situation in terms of discrimination is obvious. As a part of this urge, the Department of Justice introduced the revised Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is one of the agencies that are required to implement these changes. However, the change attempt cannot be considered successful. The document provides some loopholes that often lead to the violation of human rights. Apparently, there is much work to do to improve the situation and address all people appropriately.
Works Cited
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles. Advancing Justice – LA Responds to DOJ Revised Guidance Regarding Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. 2014. Web.
Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity. 2014. Web.
The criminal justice field has traditionally been considered a male occupation. Besides, there has been a tendency to treat minorities with prejudices in the sector. This paper, thus, aims to demonstrate that both women and minorities should be recruited and trained in the criminal justice field regardless of a probable lack of objectivity and general opinion.
To start with, it is necessary to dwell upon the notion of organizational culture. It is acknowledged to be a specific kind of norms, values, beliefs, and modes of behavior that characterize the manner of cooperation in groups and between individuals within the working team. It is a system of creeds and rules as the product of recruitment, management, conduct, structures, and processes in the organization. Organizational culture is characterized by the following features: first, it is subject to administration and manipulation; second, it can be designed and formed by the management in the course of administration.
Hence, organizational culture is the way of the existing cooperation. Thus, it might be amended, and one of the directions for this in terms of this paper is to consider the possibility of recruiting women and minorities in the criminal justice field. There are two basic ethical rules which can be applied in the situation in question. First, it is necessary not to tolerate any sort of discrimination, be it against gender, origin, or religion. Second, it is crucial to apply the principle of independent opinion and objectivity in the course of evaluation of any candidate (Wilson, 2014).
The current recruiting strategy has failed to take into account staffing diversity. Besides, the strategy appears not to be free of prejudices. The HR-specialist relies on the mere description of the position that sounds rather man-like. According to the research (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2015), to comply with the position, it is necessary to show respect for the responsibilities and realize what part the profession happens to play in the society. Besides, the candidate should be aware of the key aspects like behavior and fitness norms, as well as be honest, reliable, and well-organized. Apart from that, it is important to be fit and eager to learn a lot of information and build up new skills. The candidate is expected to be able to work in a team and be communicative. Moreover, stress-resistance and a solid ability to solve problems are important. These requirements are traditionally considered as men’s attributes, so women do not have a chance to get the job. As for minority groups, it is likely to be a question of distrust (Cole et al., 2015).
However, to improve the situation, it might be reasonable to apply the principle of staffing diversity. Diversity implies approving, comprehending, and appreciating dissimilarities in people. Diversity in the workplace is crucial, as a range of experiences and cultures proves to introduce novelties and provide various views. It is necessary to understand that devotion and compassion can be found in various people regardless of their origin or sex (Wilson, 2014). So, it is wise to recruit specialists without taking into account their ethnicity and gender. Therefore, it is necessary to interview more candidates. Position descriptions should attract not only the majority but also minorities. It might be useful to organize a community meeting to explain to women and minorities that they are awaited in the segment if they are high-class professionals in the sector and are willing to devote themselves to the criminal justice field. In this strive, it is still necessary not to discriminate against the majority.
In conclusion, it is important to note that staffing diversity is important. Staffing ethics requires avoidance of any prejudices in relation to the candidate. In order to employ minorities and women in the criminal justice field, it is necessary to take up measures to attract them to the segment.
References
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E. & DeJong, C. (2015). Criminal justice in America. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wilson, J. M. (2014). Strategies for police recruitment: A review of trends, contemporary issues and existing approaches. Law Enforcement Executive forum, 14(1), 241-265.
The relationship between the state and the citizens has been subject to various interpretations. At the same time the role and power of the state over its subject has received wide coverage. The core question under such a circumstance is whether people reserve the right to control the affairs of the state or not. Should the citizens subject themselves to the rule of the state at all times or not? This and many other questions have attracted a number of theories and ideas on how the state should function in relation to the welfare of its citizens, as a result many theories and thoughts have been advanced that tempt to propose the manner in whish the citizens of a state should play a role on the affairs of the state. Civil Disobedience is one very significant contribution to the works concerning the relationship between the sate and citizens. Written by Henry David Thoreau, the essay advocates for remedial action on the part of the citizens when the sate fails to satisfy their needs.
Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience refers to the resistance of the people to the sate. This happens when the sate fails to fulfill the needs and serve the purpose for the citizens. Under civil disobedience, the citizens reserve the rights to defy the authority of the state when in their opinion the stat is taking them n the wrong direction. Under normal circumstance the relationship between the state and the citizens is skewed in favor of the state. This means that the state reserves the right to impose its will on the people. However, to avoid tyranny and injustice, civil disobedience advocates for strict action by the citizens upon the state when the state becomes a perpetrators of injustice. The concept of civil disobedience was proposed by Henry David Thoreau. One of the key motivators for the proposition of this concept was the events of politics and conflict in the united sates and Mexico. Thoreau observed that the United States government became an engine of oppression and injustice. One major observation made by Thoreau that also led to the proposition of civil disobedience was the slavery. According to him by entrenching slavery into the law the government had ceased being a guarantee of civil liberties and freedoms (Thoreau, p. 23). As a result the people were no longer safe with the government since it had turned against them.The remedy to such situation according to the civil disobedience concept is for the people to rebel against the government. As much as the government is a people institution, Thoreau advocated for the breaking of the sate law when the law ceased to guarantee the freedoms of the citizens.
Thoreau knew very well the consequences of the disobedience. He had been subject to imprisonment at one point during his lifetime when he refused to pay tax. However, he strongly believed that disobedience to the sate was the best tool for the citizens to free themselves from the tyranny of the sate. Even if the actions led to imprisonment, Thoreau believed it was better that submitting to the barbaric rules of the state. In his opinion, the sate requires the support of the conscience of the citizens. As a result those citizens who don’t exercise their rights and merely follow the declarations of the sate are of no importance in the society and state. Therefore the citizens should stand for their rights even if the consequences are severe. Thoreau described the government as a tool of injustice and oppression. He found the government to be the highest form of barbarism and harassment. These according to him were going to cause people to rebel. Therefore those actions of the sate were going to necessitate a revolution. This revolution was to take the form of civil disobedience. Through civil disobedience the people were going to stand up against the brutality and injustice of the state. Through civil disobedience the citizens were going to free themselves.
Civil disobedience is therefore a means through which the citizens retain their right to derive freedom and protection from the state. In case the sate fails in its obligation and begins oppressing the citizens then they rebel from its authority by challenging its statutes. Without civil disobedience the citizens of a state will have no freedom, no rights and they will be at the mercy of the rulers of the states. Civil disobedience us still effective even if t is being perpetrated by the minority. According to Thoreau the rule of the majority does not guarantee justice, freedom and wisdom. As result no matter the number of those citizens who are dissatisfied with the actions and rules of the sate civil disobedience is still effective. In his opinion the right to disobey the state is not limited by democracy in which the majorities win. Therefore the right to rebel against the sate is the best way for the citizens to asset their freedoms and press for justice. The government having lost its role as the guarantor of the freedoms and rights of the citizens has no right to impose its will upon the subjects (Thoreau, p. 31). Through civil disobedience therefore the citizens have a solution for the rampant acts of corruption, injustice and oppression by the government. As Thoreau observed the government has been a monster which oppresses its people by the use of the laws of the sate. Thus the people have to device another method of bringing about the desired sate in the society. The best way to conduct such a revolution is through a direct rebellion of the laws of the sate so as to have no effect of the same in the livers of the citizens.
Role of Gandhi and Luther
Mohandas Gandhi was the leader of Indian independence movement. Walker & Bay (36) asserts that, “during the time when India was a British colony Mohandas Gandhi played a pivotal role in the India to independence.” Gandhi was a strong admirer of Thoreau’s works especially that regarding to the civil disobedience. Gandhi believed that it was Thoreau’s contribution that led to the abolition of slavery. As a result Gandhi held the works of Thoreau in high esteem. Mahatma Gandhi himself believed in the role of citizens in emancipating themselves from the rule and injustices of the state. He was in favor of Thoreau’s argument that citizens who feel dissatisfied with the conduct of the caste should rise to the occasion and challenge the rule of the state (Walker & Bay 43). Through civil disobedience Mohandas Gandhi believed that the role of emancipation les with the people themselves and they must practice this right if they want to be free from oppression. In his campaign for free India; satyagaraha Gandhi practiced the civil disobedience to the India n situation. He is the man who is credited with leading India to independence through nonviolence. Non violence was the concept Mohandas embraced thru8gh out the struggle for freedom n India. However the nonviolence was an advanced for of civil disobedience since it involved going against the will of the sate. Mahatma led his people in India to rebel against the laws put in place by the British government during the colonial period. The practice of civil disobedience had a lot of consequences for Mohandas Gandhi; he was jailed on several occasions due to his activities that contradicted the British imperial will in India. However this did not deter Gandhi from his strong believe in the freedom and emancipation of the people at any cost. In fact Mohandas Gandhi gave shi life for the course of emancipation and freedom of the people. His belief in civil disobedience finally led to his assassination.
The thoughts of Thoreau on civil disobedience were of great influence to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both in his writings and revolution activities Luther embraced fully the concept of civil disobedience. In his autobiography Luther expressed admiration of the work of Thoreau and how hit influence his role. Through hi career during the American civil rights movement Luther practiced civil disobedience. Luther is credited as being the dominant figure behind the American civil rights movement (Bedau, p. 195). One of the things Luther campaign against was the sates brutality towards blacks by allowing slavery. Slavery had been entrenched in the constitution and it was therefore illegal for anyone to campaign against slavery. However Luther led African Americans in a series of protests with the aim of disobeying the sates position on the slavery and other issuers of freedom. The African Americans had no rights in the Americans society and states. They were considered as lesser humans in comparisons to the whites. As a result the official state position elevated the whites at the expense pf the blacks. As much as the blacks were minorities Luther led them to undertake several acts of disobedience. Luther strongly believed in the role of the citizens who feel oppressed by the state to free themselves. His believed was that the people had the right to free themselves from the oppressive hand of the sate. As a result Luther gave his life for the cause of freedom. He lived and died pressing for the recognition of the rights of the oppressed in the society. He followed in the footsteps of Thoreau by being a living practical example of civil disobedience.
Critique
Civil disobedience is an approach that seeks to empower the citizens against the injustices and inappropriate acts by the sate. Under normal circumstances the state reserves the right to impose its rule upon the subjects. Sometimes this rule might be barbaric and discriminatory but it was once considered that the will of the state should be followed by all and sundry. This kind sate prevailed for along time through which the oppression of the citizens by the sate became rampant. As a result the sate turned from being a guarantor of freedoms and rights to the perpetrators of al evil. At this time the major question that arose was whether the citizens are bound by the acts and decisions of the sate no matter the implication. What about when the sate oppresses its sown citizens. Since the oppression of the people by the sate and government became rampant, a remedy had to be found. The citizens had to be cushioned from the injustices f the state. Civil disobedience which was proposed by Henry David Thoreau came in the right time. This was the solution the people needed. The citizens of the state needed a forum through which their rights and freedoms would be guaranteed. Civil disobedience provides for a forum through which the citizens of the state can cushion themselves from the oppression of the state. Through civil disobedience the citizens can aster their will against the state. Through this that can bring about the desired change in the society.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo. Civil disobedience: theory and practice. California: Pegasus, 1969.
Thoreau, Henry. Civil disobedience. New York: Forgotten Books, 1964.
Thoreau, Henry. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Washington: Wilder Publications, 2008.
Walker, Charles and Bay, Christian. Civil disobedience: Theory and practice. New York: Black Rose Books, 1975.