The issue of comparative effectiveness of centralization and decentralization is prevalent in the case study presented by Stojkovic, Klofas, and Kalinch (2014). While the National Advisory Commission (NAC) provided recommendations on the structure of criminal justice organizations back in the 1970s, the heated debate regarding its effectiveness is still in place. This assignment briefly examines the issue of centralization and decentralization, overviewing the negative consequences of the attorney’s office funded by the state, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the commission’s recommendations.
Negative Consequences of the State’s Funding of the Attorney’s Office
The central idea why the local prosecuting attorney’s office should not be funded by the state refers to the concept of separation of power. The aforementioned principle balances to support the stability of the government, providing checks to each branch of the government. If one branch (or even person) is entitled to more power than others, making decisions to one’s best interest rather than for a collective good, the intended mandate of the position shall be dismissed. Not only the separation of power balances the organization’s right for authority, but it also contributes to lower levels of corruption and prejudice in the industry.
Therefore, in the case of the local prosecuting attorney, the official should receive payment from municipal funds to avoid external influence and pressure of other authoritarian figures. Provided this position is funded by a state, the likelihood of the conflict of interest arises, as the prosecutor makes a decision in the city’s best interest rather than that in the state’s. Another possibility for the conflict appears if the prosecutor is assigned to investigate a state official. To secure the principle of separation of power, funding for municipal positions should be separated, as well. Similar strategies are to be applied not only on the local but also on the federal level of the governmental hierarchy.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Commission’s Recommendations
The implementation of the commission’s recommendations remains a controversial issue in the industry, as well. On the one hand, it is beneficial to apply these guidelines as they were thoroughly researched by legal experts. Before finalizing the proposals for recommendations, the Law Commission (LC) consults with federal, local, and state officials to find common ground on the issue. Commission recommendations frequently touch several areas of law simultaneously. In other words, by implementing one commission recommendation, it may be easier to understand a multitude of law cases.
Despite the aforementioned pros of the commission recommendations, several disadvantages should be explored. Implementation of the commission recommendations is a slow process that needs to be approved and finalized by the government. Even after the final approval, the parliament does not have to follow all the guidelines mentioned in the commission recommendations, meaning that their implementation may be only partial. In this case, a partial implementation may not lead to the best results, limiting significant changes in the executive system.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the current debate regarding the NAC’s commission’s recommendations on the criminal justice organizations’ structure lasts for more than four decades already. The local prosecuting attorney’s office should avoid state funding because of the principle of power separation. The advantages of commission recommendations include thorough research by legal experts, consultation with government officials, and coverage of a multitude of law cases. Drawbacks of the aforementioned concept refer to a slow process of approval and partial implementation of the guidelines.
Crimes are omnipresent and are part of how contemporary society functions. Despite many advancements in technology and economics, the presence of felonies and misdemeanors has not vanished. Crimes exist because of various social issues, and by addressing these societal problems, such as drug use and gender inequality, criminal justice professionals may decrease overall crime rates. This paper will explore drug use, recidivism, and domestic violence as critical issues that criminal justice specialists are facing.
Drug Use and the Role of Gender
Substance abuse is one of the most significant challenges of contemporary society. It is ubiquitous, and persons of all ages engage in this unfavorable activity. Despite being illegal, drug trafficking and distribution are not declining. The profitability of the business has led many individuals to commit crimes. The majority of people test positive for drugs when they are taken into custody, which suggests that substance use contributes to crime rates (Buccelli et al., 2016). Criminal justice professionals are faced with a dilemma – on the one hand, legalizing drugs would decrease its profitability and attractiveness for aspiring outlaws. On the other hand, legalization will imminently increase the availability of drugs, thus contributing to consumption rates. It is not possible to predict how crime rates would react to such changes in legislation. The challenge is exacerbated by the lack of knowledge about the role of gender in this context. Researchers suggest that interventions designed for male drug users may not be suitable for female criminals (Buccelli et al., 2016). Therefore, criminal justice professionals should engage in sophisticated research in order to devise an appropriate solution.
Recidivism
Most crimes are committed by individuals that previously faced criminal charges. Repeating a crime after receiving punishment is called recidivism, and it is of significant concern for criminal justice professionals (Spruit et al., 2017). To address the challenge, most states have adopted the Three-strikes law, which ensures that a person who commits three serious crimes serves a life sentence. The efficacy of this law, however, is under question because the legislation does not take the age factor into account. Researchers have established that inclination toward recidivism declines over time (Spruit et al., 2017). Moreover, risk factors that predict recidivism differ significantly among various age groups (Spruit et al., 2017). Criminal justice professionals need to consider current scientific evidence and revise the Three-strikes law. At its current state, it should not be used as a common framework for battling recidivism.
Domestic Violence
Domestic violence rates have been increasing steadily for many years. Today, 25% of women have experienced some abuse from their intimate partners (National statistics, 2020). The absence of a decline in this percentage suggests that the criminal justice system has not been effective in addressing this issue. Professionals need to develop new response mechanisms to decrease domestic violence rates nationally. To accomplish this task, criminal justice workers need to have a holistic picture of the issue, need to understand why such acts of abuse occur, and how they can be prevented.
Conclusion
The criminal justice system has failed to decrease crime rates due to the lack of knowledge in relevant scientific areas. For instance, there is not enough information to make a decision in regards to drug legalization with the aim of decreasing drug-associated crimes. Moreover, the current Three-strikes law does not take many age-related intricacies of human behavior into account. Domestic violence continues to increase because no appropriate response strategies exist today.
References
Buccelli, C., Della Casa, E., Paternoster, M., Niola, M., & Pieri, M. (2016). Gender differences in drug abuse in the forensic toxicological approach. Forensic Science International, 265, 89-95. Web.
National statistics. (2020). National Coalition against Domestic Violence. Web.
Spruit, A., van der Put, C., Gubbels, J., & Bindels, A. (2017). Age differences in the severity, impact and relative importance of dynamic risk factors for recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 69-77. Web.
The criminal justice system has undergone several adjustments. These trends do not seem to be ceasing any time soon. For instance, the law enforcement department has experienced brilliant developments in the past generation. Its future is indeed promising. Through the classic duty of law enforcers includes crime inquiry, the crime department has increased its mandates to include other issues such as averting crime and lowering crime rates.
The contemporary law enforcement is not only reactive but also proactive. Technology has quickly become an essential component in policing unlike the previous generation. Hence, as technology transforms, the activities of law enforcers also change. This paper discusses some of these developments in the law enforcement department and its anticipated future. Moreover, the paper will discuss the budgetary and managerial impact that future trends will have on the department of criminal justice system.
Social and Population Trends
According to Schaible and Sheffield (2012), numerous population adjustments will influence policing, particularly in America. It is anticipated that the population of non-Hispanics will reduce to 50% in 2020. This observation implies that Hispanics will increase in number. Since the increased population of Hispanics will demand more attention, it implies that other races such as African-Americans will be secluded. Statistical findings reveal that African-Americans will maintain a population growth of 20% in 2050. Interracial marriages will influence how law enforces conduct their policing since people will cease to identify themselves in terms of ethnic or racial alignment (Baker & Das, 2013).
The current generation differs from previous populations because it is willing to reveal its private information voluntarily. The observation is evident in social media where subscribers share information, which might be considered private by the entire society. This divergence from the previous generation will make it easy for police officers to conduct investigations and even prevent crime easily. Nonetheless, the trend in the growing population reveals a rising situation of drug use. Addictive drugs are considered a health problem rather than a criminal offence. With such perceptions, the use of drug abuse will become a norm, unless doctors suggest otherwise (Baker & Das, 2013).
Changes in Science and Technology
Technology has the impact of creating new types of crimes whilst providing other means of preventing and managing crime. Future technological innovations will definitely create new forms of crime. For instance, the emergence and dependence on the internet has generated new forms of crime such as cybercrime whose popularity is growing at a daunting rate. Technological advancement may even exacerbate the situation to an extent that cybercrime will be conducted by avatars. This case will make it difficult to arrest the main perpetrators, especially where there are no laws that hinder such acts. Japanese people have already had an experience of an avatar (Kostelac, 2008).
In 2008, a woman was apprehended for damaging the avatar of her former spouse. The significance of such offenses is likely to increase in the near future. Laws need to be flexible and/or remain in tandem with the advancement in technology, failure to which law enforcers will find it strenuous to prevent or control crime. Criminals should never be given an opportunity to outwit police officers. As individuals’ reliance on the internet persists, the emerging type of offenses such as hate speech, child pornography, and sexting will increase. Many offenders have already been imprisoned because of their demeaning character in the internet (Baker & Das, 2013).
Technology will also provide criminals who will have other options of committing their evils. For instance, drugs will be transported by submarines, which are not closely monitored by security officers. Therefore, it is important for law enforcers to use devices that will help in manning such criminal acts. However, the use of technological advancements to counter crime will be influenced by social and economic views. For instance, the law enforcement sector has received fervent opposition on using tasers, especially after the discovered that it attracts deaths. Courts have also decreed against DNA testing. They cite that law enforcers do not have that liberty to do it.
Furthermore, the fear that one can alter such sensitive information has cast doubts among people, thus providing even more reasons to oppose the use of such devices. Indeed, as technology advances, new modes of getting information from suspects such as facial appearance, racial background, and the use of DNA are worrying in terms of how the public will receive such ideas (Schaible & Sheffield, 2012). Moreover, technology may also bring about general advanced means of punishing offenders. For instance, cybercrime might be controlled by forbidding offenders from using them through detective devices. These devices can be connected to law enforcement databases so that police officers stand a chance to monitor such offenders and/or prevent reoccurrence of any offenses.
Economic Trend and its Influence on Law enforcement
According to Baker and Das (2013), economic crisis of the previous years has had a destructive impact on domestic and the law enforcement economies. Budget cuts have hampered the activities of law enforcers. This impact is likely to last for a decade. Hence, it is important for law enforcers to begin designing new methods of providing their services to the public. Economic downturn has increased the rate of unemployment. It is anticipated that Americans will remain jobless for a long time. Unemployment will encourage a rise in criminal activities since individuals will seek other means of survival.
Economic recession compelled law enforcement leaders to develop a means of providing quality services. Considering the issues of staffing, a growing trend is evident in terms of provision of quality policing using few employees. A recent study by the National Association of Counties has revealed that about 50% of the US counties have adopted the idea of using fewer police officers to serve people. The cost of managing employees has been reduced through layoffs, compulsory furloughs, and abrasion.
This decline is evident in the number of officers who are expected to serve a given population. In 2004, 250 officers were expected to handle 100,000 individuals. However, the number has reduced dramatically. For instance, in 2011, approximately 184 police officers were expected to serve the same population of 100, 000. The effectiveness of this idea will depend on whether technological advancement is used as an alternative for the laid-off officers. Some agencies have acquired a new trend of rehiring officers who have been laid-off whenever that needs arises (Meade, 2010).
The idea of retrenching personnel has reduced the quality of service delivery. For instance, statistical findings indicate that some agencies do not respond to non-injury accidents, burglar alarms and carjacking reports. There is an increasing complaint among the public that police officers have been providing poor services since the budget was cut.
Apart from poor services, a reduction in training programs has been witnessed in an effort to concur with the available budget. Moreover, law enforcers are encouraging community policy as a means of reducing the burden that the remaining law enforcers have to endure. In line with this observation, many agencies are also resorting to civilianization. Civilianization entails hiring civilians who have not been sworn to work as police officers. It is cheaper in relation to hiring sworn officers because it reduces the cost of training and salaries (Kostelac, 2008).
Changes in the Environment
Climate change has proved to affect almost every sector of human life. Law enforcement is not immune to this effect. Climate change has caused internal refugees to flee from harsh climates. This situation may tamper with demographic distribution, which in turn implies that crime may dramatically reduce in certain areas whilst proliferating in others. In essence, it will force the law enforcement sector to remain vigilant to the extent of reassigning its officers to certain areas when necessary as noted by Meade (2010).
Conclusion
Just like any criminal justice department, policing agencies have been affected by the witnessed adjustment in technology, population, changes in climate, and the economic recession. Economic downturn caused a trend that was characterized by a reduction of personnel and the maximization of service delivery. Technology has created new crimes that are not precisely addressed by the existing laws. This situation has resulted in poor prevention of such crimes. Nonetheless, police officers have adopted the use of advanced investigation devices. However, public opposition has hampered this move since it interferes with social values. Indeed, the future trend of law enforcement will be affected by a myriad of issues. Nevertheless, stakeholders should not withdraw from addressing these issues.
Reference List
Baker, F. & Das, K. (2013). Trends in Policing: Interviews with Police Leaders across the Globe. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Kostelac, A. (2008). The Changing Face of Police Organizations: Trends in Civilianization. Michigan, MI: ProQuest.
Meade, E. (2010). Scanning the Future of Law Enforcement: A Trend Analysis. Futurist, 44(4), 22-25.
Schaible, M., & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence-led policing and change in state law enforcement agencies. Policing, 35(4), 761-784.
Recent events, such as the widespread incidents of police brutality and the increasingly frequent failed death row executions, have drawn a lot of attention toward the issue of criminal law enforcement in the United States. They also exposed the deficiencies and shortfalls of the criminal justice system, which has long been a source of disagreement between the Democrats and the Republicans, making any changes to the policy unlikely. However, now that conservative politicians, like their liberal counterparts, have come to acknowledge the inefficiency of the current system, there is hope for a comprehensive policy reform. The US criminal justice system urgently needs to be reformed as the current policy undermines justice and transparency in the US society.
The term ‘criminal justice administration’ refers to a set of policies and resource management practices that define how crime-committing individuals are treated in the society (Cole, Smith, & Dejong, 2014, p. 89). The US policy approach was formulated in the late 1960s and 1970s – a period marked by a rapidly growing crime rate – under a predominantly Republican government. The way new media channels, particularly television, exposed crimes, especially the most violent ones, agitated the public opinion. The citizens of the United States grew less and less tolerant of criminals, and, under the public pressure, the government opted out for the so-called “get tough” approach to criminal justice (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 40). The common perception was that criminals choose the lifestyle they lead and thus they deserve to fully face the consequences of their actions, regardless of the specific context. While the origins of this approach are understandable, its results were largely unforeseen. A predominantly punitive approach, with its non-discriminating and inflexible view on crime, resulted in an oversimplification of the intricate concept of crime and is now threatening what it is intended to protect – justice in the United States.
The root of the problem is the inadequate legislation that resulted in a peculiar application of the law, with people receiving unjustifiably long sentences for relatively minor transgressions. For instance, implementation of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly in relation to possession or distribution of drugs, has filled the US prisons with non-violent drug offenders, some of them serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for possessing minuscule amounts of drugs. Mandatory minimums were initially intended to reduce the extent of judicial discretion to ensure that some crimes were punished by a certain number of years in prison (Cassell & Luna, 2011, p. 219). First introduced in 1951, these provisions did not become truly problematic until the War on Drugs when they started to raise questions about “the erosion of transparency and the truth-seeking function” of the US criminal justice system (Cassell & Luna, 2011, p. 219-220). Currently, even when the mandatory minimum requirements are reviewed and amended in some state legislations, these changes do not apply retrospectively to those already convicted under these provisions (Cassell & Luna, 2011, p. 225). To make the matter even more preposterous, some of the drug offenders are currently serving their sentences for possession or distribution of marijuana – a substance whose recreational consumption has been recently legalized in several states. Clearly, a new understanding of what constitutes and what causes crimes has emerged, highlighting the obsoleteness of the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing and similar laws.
Policies like mandatory minimums demonstrate the commitment of the US legal system to the crime control model at the expense of the due process model (Cole et al., 2014, p. 14). The former model values speed and efficiency above everything else: the system is performing well if it is capable of apprehending and convicting as many offenders as possible. Another example of such legislation is the three strikes laws, requiring that those who have committed two prior offenses get a considerably longer sentence on their “third strike” (Andrews, & Bonta, 2010). The due process model, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of everyone receiving a fair trial based on carefully examined information, all while being represented by a qualified defender. Surely, the two models are not necessarily mutually exclusive but they do represent two extremes on one spectrum. For too long, the policy pendulum in the American criminal justice system has swung to the crime control model. It resulted in mass incarceration and large economic strains on the state and federal budgets. Currently, America is the leading country in terms of the number of its imprisoned citizens, outperforming illiberal regimes like Russia and China (Cullen, Johnson, & Nagin, 2011). The exploding incarceration rates naturally caused a significant increase in criminal justice expenses. Currently, about $60 billion is spent annually on correctional institutions, which represents a 235% increase since 1982 (Subramanian, Delaney, Roberts, Fishman, & McGarry, 2015, p. 12). Clearly, the current state of affairs is not sustainable in the long run, especially since some states are forced to prioritize prison maintenance over education in their budgets.
Another grave implication of the current inadequate legislation is the disproportionate adverse impact it has on racial and socioeconomic minorities in the United States. The most affected group are the African Americans, who represent about 40% of all prisoners but account for only 10% of the total population (Cullen et al., 2011). This distribution is clearly influenced by the existing prejudices in the criminal law enforcement practices: for instance, policing is largely concentrated in minority neighborhoods, and schools in such areas are more likely to implement zero-tolerance policies (Subramanian et al., 2015, p. 15). The bail system also disproportionally favors those who can afford it, meaning disadvantaged socioeconomic groups are not given an equal opportunity when it comes to just treatment. Currently, the prisons are filled with those who may have committed a minor offense, such as driving with a suspended license, but who are too poor – or too ill – to afford bail (Subramanian et al., 2015, p. 2). Thus, rather than delivering justice, the system appears to be merely furthering the socioeconomic cleavages in the United States.
Even though incarceration itself is already flawed, former prisoners experience further problems upon their release. Particularly, some states make former inmates subject to the so-called “collateral consequences.” These penalties vary from prisoner disenfranchisement to suspension of a driver’s license to inability to receive an education loan or get a job. As Chin duly notes, having a criminal record represents the modern form of civil death – or a loss of individual civil rights – comparable to the barbaric practice of outlawry in the Middle Ages (Chin, 2012). The criminal justice system has been criticized for not putting enough effort into prisoner rehabilitation to help former inmates make a successful transition back into the community as law-abiding citizens. Insufficient resources are currently allocated for prison education and job training, and former inmates come out of the prison unprepared to live in the society (Cole et al., 2014, p. 645). Being stripped of education and employment opportunities and, in some cases, deprived of public housing, many former inmates have no choice but to return to crime – a vicious circle responsible for creating a permanent underclass.
With the negative consequences of the current criminal justice policy being so pervasive and well-documented, it seems surprising why the status quo persisted for so long. The answer is more simple and yet more complex than one may think. Public security and individual freedom are believed to present an irreconcilable trade-off, with every society deciding how much of each it is willing to sacrifice. Even though the crime rates in the United States are not necessarily higher than in other developed countries, the majority public opinion often seems to favor security over freedom, especially since those most affected rarely have a voice in the matter (Kelly, 2014). The ever-growing terrorist threat only gave more legitimacy to such opinions. However, reforming the criminal justice system does not mean unleashing vile criminals back into the society. Rather, it implies remedying the injustice done to individuals who have received disproportionate sentences and re-allocating the efforts and funds toward rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Thus, decades of inadequate governance exacerbated the problem of criminal justice administration, as currently the system is overburdened with costly mass incarceration, disadvantaging the vulnerable members of the society and creating a permanent underclass because of insufficient rehabilitation efforts. A major policy overhaul is long overdue: it is time to acknowledge that the “tough-on-crime” approach, however promising it sounds in populist rhetoric, is failing the US society and instead turn to the due process approach to criminal justice.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39-55.
Cassell, P. G., & Luna, E. (2011). Sense and sensibility in mandatory minimum sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(3), 219-227.
Chin, G. J. (2012). The new civil death: Rethinking punishment in the era of mass conviction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1789-1833.
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & Dejong, C. (2014). The American System of Criminal Justice (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Cullen, F. T., Johnson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S-65S.
Kelly, J. J. (2014). Balancing national security and freedom: Reactions to terrorism and its effect on citizens’ civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy (Master’s thesis, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD). Web.
Subramanian, R., Delaney, R., Roberts, S., Fishman, N., & McGarry, P. (2015). Incarceration’s front door: The misuse of jails in America. Web.
Since time immemorial human society has been in need of a power which would carry out control over it and prevent crime, punishing the culprit in case of offence. Nowadays this function is performed by the system of criminal justice which comprises police, as a means of law enforcement; courts, as organizations carrying out adjudication; and jails, prisons, probations and parole as kinds of corrections. Criminal justice agencies, which are represented by the police investigating crime, and the attorneys prosecuting the offenders, are expected to operate within the rule of law. However, it is not infrequent that while rendering justice, the aforementioned agencies happen to involve in certain ethical issues in cases leading to miscarriage of justice. It is the goal of the present paper to review such areas of ethical issues within the field of criminal justice as: pretexting during investigation and police misconduct, and their influence on the investigated case.
When investigating a crime, it is often the case that certain information is obtained via pretexting — a trick which is described by Hartwell (2006) as “obtaining information through deception or false pretence”. The participants of pretexting misinterpret their identities or purposes in order to get information which otherwise might have not been revealed to them. Another case could be when a lawyer leading the case hires a third party to obtain evidence — such a party is called an “undercover investigator” (Hricik, 2007). On the whole, such techniques can help in advancing the investigation process and have proved to be successful. However, conducting a case with the use of pretexting and undercover investigators can raise a whole range of ethical issues and question the lawfulness and compliance of actions directed at obtaining information. There exists a set of Model Rules of Professional Conduct drawn up within the American Bar Association (2008) which can be used as guidelines in planning a proper investigation despite their inability to settle all the issues which might rise in course of the case. Otherwise there is a possibility of a retaliatory lawsuit alleging, inter alia, fraud and trespass.
Another slippery ground in the course of investigation concerns the limits of police authority when carrying out their duty. There are frequent reports of police misconduct, with the most common claims brought against police officers being false arrest (or false imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force. According to the US Department of Justice (2008).
“It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another”.
As a rule, it is quite impossible to prove police misconduct since there exists a code of non-disclosure among the police officers involved in a case of exceeding power. Moreover, occurrences of police officers giving false testimony in court have been discovered. Authoritative press editions report cases when surveillance cameras records helped to discover the true course of events, and consequently charges against innocent people were dropped (Hauser, 2009).
In all the diversity of investigation cases, there cannot be one single valid and true answer to satisfy all of the ethical issues. Thus it is important to involve the principles of ethical pluralism, enlisted by Hinman, to resolve conflicts of different ethical standards. Those are the principles of Understanding, Tolerance, Standing Up Against Evil, and Fallibility (as cited in Banks, 2004). An in-depth understanding of each particular case is vital before applying any ethical standards to its resolution.
References
American Bar Association. (2008). Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Banks, C. (2004). The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice. In Banks, C. Criminal Justice Ethics :Theory and Practice (pp. 3-17). London: Thousand Oaks: New Delhi: SAGE Publications, International Educational and Professional Publisher. Web.
Hartwell, R. V. (December 2006). Compliance and Ethics in Investigations: Getting It Right. The Antitrust Source, 6 (2).
Hauser, C. (March 25, 2009). When Evidence From Surveillance Cameras Leads to Charges Against Officers. The New York Times. p. A30.
Hricik, D. C. (2007). Conflicts and Confidentiality: The Ethical and Procedural Issues Concerning Experts. Macon, GA: Mercer University.
United States Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division. (2008, July 25). Addressing Police Misconduct: Laws Enforced by the United States Department of Justice.
Outline
I. INTRODUCTION
Thesis: certain ethical issues during crime investigation may lead to miscarriage of justice
II. BODY PARAGRAPH I
Transition/Opening Sentence: lawyers often obtain information via detours
Detail 1: pretexting
Detail 2: undercover investigating
Detail 3: a set of rules to rely upon when choosing an investigation strategy
III. BODY PARAGRAPH II:
Transition/Opening Sentence: the police often trespass the limits of their authority when enforcing law
Detail 1: kinds of police misconduct
Detail 2: impossibility to prove law enforcement misconduct
Detail 3: improving the situation due to surveillance cameras records
VI. CONCLUSION
Reconfirmed Thesis: when handling controversial ethical issues in sphere of criminal justice, principles of ethical pluralism should be used
The search of vehicles without a warrant was first permitted by the Supreme Court in the Carroll v. United States case. The Court argued that a vehicle can be searched by a police officer if the police officer has a probable cause to believe that smuggled or illegal goods are being carried in the vehicle. The reasoning behind this lies in the mobility of vehicles which can enable the owners of the vehicles to tamper with the probable evidence should a warrant be necessary to conduct a search of the vehicle.
A number of conditions were however required for the police to conduct a warrant-less search of vehicles. First, the vehicle in question ought to have been in motion and not stationary. Second, the police had to conduct the search immediately after stopping the vehicle. The Court did not permit the police to tow the impounded vehicle to the police station to conduct the search there. Following this ruling, the Supreme Court then created a “reduced privacy” justification to append the mobility justification.
The Court argued that, “one has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects…. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view,” (Schmalleger and Armstrong, 1997, p.246). Based on this rationale, the Court allowed the police to conduct a search of an impounded vehicle on any items that are in plain view of the police.
In addition, the Court also allowed the police to move an impounded vehicle to the stationhouse for a search. However, this must be done only if the police have a probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains some smuggled goods. In addition, the police can conduct a search of the luggage and containers found in the vehicle. The permission to search the ‘plain view’ items in the vehicle does not however extend to the passengers of the vehicle. Police are not allowed to conduct any search of the passengers but they can search the glove compartment and the spaces under the passengers’ seats without a warrant. Any evidence that is obtained from such searches is admissible in court and it can be used to incriminate the owner.
Consent Searches
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans from illegal searches. However, some people may opt to waiver this right and agree to a warrant-less search. In some cases, the consent given may be voluntary while in other cases consent can be given through coercion. It is therefore the burden of the jury to determine the voluntariness of the consent given and the awareness of the suspect of his right of choice. The actual knowledge of the suspect of his right of choice does not influence voluntariness and therefore the police are not mandated to provide the suspect with the Miranda warnings.
However, consent is not considered to be voluntary if the police officer declares his official status and claim of right to the suspect and the suspect accepts these factors instead of making his own decision to allow the officer to search him or his premises. On the other hand, consent can be obtained through the dishonesty of an undercover police or an informant who wants to gain admission without informing the suspect of his official status.
The evidence obtained in this manner is considered by the Supreme Court to be acceptable in court. Bergman and Berman (2008) state that, “the Court has held that the suspect has simply assumed the risk that an invitee would betray him, and evidence obtained through the deception is admissible,” (p.47). Consent can also be given by a third party and the evidence obtained is admissible in court. The third party must however have some authority or adequate association with the premises and items to be searched.
Plain View Doctrine
The plain view doctrine holds that police officers have a right to search without a warrant and seize items that are in plain view as long as the officers have a legal right to be in the place in which the items are located. Officers also have a right to conduct a warrant-less search of items in plain view if they have a probable cause to believe that the items are illegal or smuggled goods. Gaines and Miller (2008) argue that, “once officers have lawfully observed contraband, the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost, and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant,” (p.223).
The Court however rules that four conditions of the plain view doctrine must be satisfied before a police officer can seize the searched items. First, the item should be situated in a manner that will allow a police officer to easily detect it either through his sight or other senses. Second, the officer should be in that particular premise or place legally. Third, the detection of the item should be unintentional, that is, inadvertently. Lastly, the illegal nature of the item in question should be recognized immediately by the officer. Officers are not allowed to conduct further interrogation or investigation of the item once it has been seen.
Administrative Searches
Administrative searchers are searches that are conducted in organizations and institutions such as schools and government offices for regulatory purposes. Criminal evidence that is obtained through administrative searches is admissible in courts. For instance, schools may conduct a search of their students to determine whether the students are engaged in illegal drug possession and use. Government employers may also conduct a search of a government office to determine whether illegal activities such as fraud are taking place. In administrative searches, the need for probable cause is not a prerequisite.
Administrative searches are also conducted by police officers when persons and vehicles are impounded. When people are arrested or vehicles impounded and taken to the stationhouse, a search must be conducted to record the number and description of the items found on the persons or in the vehicles. Clark and Ansay (2002) argue that, “the ostensible purpose of this search is to protect the automobile and its contents and to protect the police against potential danger or charges of theft or property loss while the vehicle is in police custody,” (p.345). In passing this ruling, the Supreme Court held that administrative searches of impounded persons or vehicles are not investigatory and therefore the privacy interests of the persons concerned or the owner of the vehicles are irrelevant in such a case. The administrative search must however follow a standardized inventory procedure.
Reference List
Bergman, P., and Berman, S.J. (2008). The criminal law handbook: Know your rights, survive the system. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Clark, D.S., and Ansay, T. (2002). Introduction to the law of the United States. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Law International.
Gaines, L.K., and Miller, R.L. (2008). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Schmalleger, F., and Armstrong, G.M. (1997). Crime and the justice system in America: An encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
DNA is one of the popular methods used by criminologists today, DNA technique is also known as “genetic fingerprinting.” the name given the procedure by Cellmark Diagnostics, a Maryland company that certified the technique used in Great Britain; Lifecodes, the USA law enforcement agencies do commercial DNA identification used the DNA-Print test technique.
DNA or “deoxyribonucleic acid” is a unique genetic code of each individual. DNA represents a double-stranded chain of molecules that winds its system through the center of every nucleated cell in every living creature. From one person to another, the series in which molecules form the DNA chain differs. Within species, the number of similarities is greater than the number of alternations, but because of the uniqueness of DNA, no two intervals are exactly the same, except for identical twins (Bowers, 43).
For criminal purposes, DNA is extracted from a sample; it is then mixed with an enzyme that singles out the DNA chain at specific sites. The restriction elements that are created by this process differ in length, and a few of them contain the polymorphic DNA element. Next, the elements are sorted by length, using a method called gel electrophoresis: The elements are put on a gel and an electrical current is applied, causing the elements to move toward the positive electrode. Shorter elements move across the gel more quickly than do longer elements and, after a short time, the elements have lined up on the gel according to size. After the elements have paraded across the gel, the configuration is transferred to a nylon membrane called a blot (Fisher 65).
Comparing the elements from different samples to each other, criminologists can tell whether the samples match. In a paternity test, samples of blood are drawn from the individual and compared from the sample found at the crime scene. In a criminal investigation, the samples typically are blood from the victim, blood from the accused individual, and the samples from the crime scene, such as bloodstained parts of clothing the offender was wearing. If the DNA sample matches the sample of the offender’s blood, criminologists are willing to give evidence that the chances of the DNA on the sample coming from the offender are high (Kubic and Petraco 74).
These criminologists argue that the probabilities are frequently one in millions or billions that two persons would present an identical DNA code; the odds differ, depending on the people in question because there are racial and gender alternations in polymorphic strands, and a range of features are more common or less so. Therefore, these criminologists believe there is virtual evidence that the accused person commits a crime (Bowers, 76).
Another technique used by criminologists to determine DNA strands and similarity was developed by White and by Jeffreys. This technique is known as allele-specific testing. Criminologists use this test developed by the Cetus Corporation, to determine whether certain polymorphic DNA elements, known as alleles, are in a sample. This allows a detailed recognition of the DNA because large numbers of individuals may have any one unique allele present in their DNA. By questioning for a large number of alleles, it is likely to identify that a DNA came from one particular person out of 10,000 or 100,000.
The method is particularly useful when looking at small DNA fragments. Since DNA deteriorates so fast, it is not possible to get a large fragment to do testing using the Cellmark or Lifecodes methods. In the Cetus test, DNA is purified, then “amplified” with the help of a procedure called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). By heating and cooling the DNA samples with an enzyme, criminologists extract a few elements of a particular allele and compare it to as many as 10 million samples, it is enough to allow allele-specific probes to do their work. The enlarged DNA is “spotted” onto a membrane, and allele-specific probes are extracted (Kubic and Petraco 39).
As with other methods for identification, including Social Security codes, civil some critics are concerned about the abuse of DNA codes by administration officials to threaten and spy on individuals’ private lives, and these critics are marshaling their point of view against such use. For instance, Attorneys for the Project on Privacy and Technology of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticizes the whole NCIC program of DNA databases: he states that DNA cedes matches a specific fragment to a specific individual, the digital database will allow law enforcement to round up offenders based on a cursory examination of DNA-sample tests from crime scenes (Kubic and Petraco 23).
As a result, courts are extremely aware of the unreliability of eyewitness evidence, even from a victim. In cases where DNA-codes evidence shows that a crime-scene fragment does not match the DNA from a person convicted of the crime, they are throwing jail doors open. Some police officers redo these suitcases; others do not. Still, more police officers settle in a plea arrangement (Bowers 55).
Taking into account human rights and constitutional rights, DNA codes can be obtained from three groups of individuals: spouses, parents, and children. These groups are allowed to be tested during investigations. The expertise is clearly here, it is getting more complicated, and those who use the know-how for criminal purposes are, more and more, being held to the highest principles of laboratory discipline.
They need to be, because individuals’ lives and destiny rest on their work. While DNA codes are used as a technique of inclusion—trying to prove guiltiness—came under serious attack throughout the 1990s, the method became more and more used as an instrument of exclusion—proving that a person could not have been responsible because blood or semen fragments decisively do not match. From the very beginning, the Innocence Project concentrated on cases where individuals convicted of murder or rape felt they had not been objectively represented. Usually, the main evidence was witness identification, which experts have shown time and time again to be untrustworthy. In this case, a DNA sample helped individuals to prove their innocence and exclude them from the accused (Rainis, 98).
Today, the FBI asks for federal legislation which allows the use of DNA samples in criminal investigations. In case the state’s authorities approve this norm, the FBI will collect the DAN data in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), an FBI-directed network of data about crimes throughout the nation. The DNA database has existed since 1992 when the military services developed the first DNA-code database to be used in recognition of soldiers killed in military operations.
In June 1988, using know-how to recover DNA codes from bones, the officials were able to recognize the Vietnam-era “unknown” soldier as Air Force Lieutenant Michael J. Blassie, whose airplane was shot down near the village of An Loc on May 11, 1972 (Rainis, 87). These results show that DNA codes can be used as effective and reliable tools in the identification and recognition of an individual.
The state officials have offered proof that the fragments f DNA will be sealed and stored frozen, in order to ensure sample integrity over a long period of time. In regard to doubts about privacy and secrecy, the officials indicate that the data will be kept only as long as a person is in active military service or the reserves and will be deleted upon separation from the military; additional, the samples will be used only for recognition after death, not for criminal identification or paternity, except the case of law enforcement agency orders the military to turn over the DNA sample (Fisher, 54).
In spite of great opportunities proposed by DNA tests, privacy concerns and objectivity of results are still important for the society. It is evident that once DNA samples are collected they will not be destroyed after the death and separation from the military (Siegal et al 101). The records will be created in all states at a greater cost to the public. The proposed structure of DNA databases will lead to abuse of rights and freedoms of offenders as their DNA specimen will be tested more often than DNA samples of other individual (Siegal et al 98). The record is the possible solution, like the fingerprint record; thus it will violate rights of the populace.
The problem is that a criminal will know that he might be able to wipe out his fingerprint but leaving his DNA is another issue of analysis. Admit that the DNA test costs the state about, so it will demand millions of dollars to create and expend DNA database (Fisher, 13).
In sum, DNA test is one of the possible solutions to improve criminal investigations and prove a guild, but it still has a lot of limitations and weaknesses. DNA code is more useful for social services than just for police, that there are a lot of times when DNA identification is impossible. Criminologists are searching for methods to extract enough DNA fragments from bone to do a conclusive DNA coding. The police already is looking to DNA codes and record-keeping for its duty of positive identification of those killed.
Works Cited
Bowers, M.C. Manual of Forensic Odontology. Forensic Pr, 1995.
Fisher, B. A. J. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation, 6th edn, CRC Press, 2000.
Kubic, TH., Petraco, N. Forensic Science Laboratory Manual and Workbook, Revised Edition. CRC; 2 edition, 2003.
Rainis, K. G. Blood and DNA Evidence: Crime-Solving Science Experiments (Forensic Science Projects). Enslow Publishers, 2003.
Siegal et al. (eds), Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences, Academic Press, London, 2000.
Many factors influence the development of the criminal justice system in a country. In general, there are four primary legislative systems – common, civil, East Asian, and Islamic. However, it should be noted that every country has its distinct characteristics, which affect its legal methodology. This paper aims to examine the history, culture, and recent changes, which affected criminal justice systems in Saudi Arabia, Germany, and the US.
Historical and Cultural Aspects
Saudi Arabia is a country located in Western Asia and the largest domain in the Middle Asia region. Various ancient civilizations inhabited the territory of which the state currently consists. The primary religion of the nation is Islam, which guides the cultural development of the country. Due to this fact, Saudi Arabia’s criminal justice system is Islamic (Dammer & Albanese, 2014). Germany is among the most developed countries both in the world and in Europe.
The domain was inhabited by different tribes, which further formed the Holy Roman Empire. Its criminal justice system is based on civil law principals. It can be argued that historically and culturally, the US and Germany are similar. Primarily this is because immigrants populate the US; most of them are from European countries. The US criminal justice system is based on common law principals (Dammer & Albanese, 2014). Thus, the traditions and distinct cultural features were transformed and further transformed into the new environment.
Common-Law System
The Constitution guides the US criminal justice system and is executed by a network of federal and state institutions. Additionally, the criminal laws and their interpretation may vary based on the level on which a case is examined, however, all of them are based on the Constitution (“U.S. criminal justice system,” n.d.). The laws of the country identify different punishments or crimes, among which there is the death penalty. It is imposed on people who have committed severe crimes; however, each case and its particular aspects are examined by the court. It should be noted that common law adheres to no specific code as a guide.
Historically, the system was formed due to different events that impacted the country’s development. The primary factor is the development of the US because the common law system was established in England. However, it should be noted that in the Middle Ages, the practice of “establishment of judicial decisions as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as the basis of civil law” became common in the country (“The common law and civil law traditions,” n.d., para. 10). Thus, both civil and common law influenced the criminal justice system in the US due to its historical connections with England.
Louisiana is a state in the US that differs from the other countries in its legislative regulations. Due to its history of being owned by France and Spain, the state adheres to the civil law principals. This connects the US criminal justice system with the German because both apply similar approaches to the legal system. It can be argued that political motives prevalent in the 1800s impacted such division.
Therefore, the culture brought from European countries impacted the development of the legal system of common law in the US. Additionally, according to Harris (2018), recent polls display a change in society’s perception of criminal acts. This may be connected to the presidential elections and a modification of the country’s course. Both politicians and the general public have spoken out regarding possible adverse effects of severe punishments (Lee & Webb, 2018). This new view can result in sharp changes made to the current system. Therefore, it can be argued that criminal justice has influenced the cultural environment of the country, primarily issues regarding incarceration for minor crimes.
Islamic System
Saudi Arabia’s culture and historical development were strongly influenced by religion and culture. Due to this fact, its criminal justice system differs drastically from that of the US or Germany. Traditionally, the country and its leaders support a conservative view on laws and their execution. According to Dyer (2016), there is no criminal code in the country, which would strictly regulate its legal system. Instead, religious laws and beliefs are applied to identify criminals and their punishments. This leads to judges having great freedom in identifying crimes and suggesting adequate penalties for them.
The criminal justice system in Saudi Arabia adheres to laws and standards, which were developed historically following the nation’s religious beliefs. Dyer (2016) provides a clear example to illustrate the actual state of justice in Saudi Arabia by recalling the 2013 execution of five Yemenis accused of murder. The act was carried out by the authorities, and the bodies were put on display as a warning to others. Dyer (2016) describes these actions as “standard practice in the desert kingdom” (para. 2).
The distinct feature of this legislative system is that one may be severely punished for non-criminal actions as well. At first glance, Saudi Arabia’s criminal system may punish more people than any other country in the world. Dyer (2016) disagrees by stating that both China and Iran have more death penalties than the domain in question. However, the severity of punishment and practice of displaying dead bodies is prevalent in Saudi Arabia.
Culture and religion had a massive impact on the development of Islamic criminal justice. Saudi Arabia recognizes sorcery and adultery as law violations. Additionally, punishments are not limited to imprisonment or the death penalty. People may be subjected to “beheading, whipping, crucifying and stoning” (Dyer, 2016, para. 10). These two aspects display distinct differences between Islamic and Common law systems. An example is the case of Ali Hussain Sibat from Lebanon, who visited Saudi Arabia in 2008 (Dyer, 2016). Sibat was accused of predicting the future in his TV show, for which he was sentenced to death.
Therefore, Saudi Arabia’s criminal system was affected by the country’s history and religion. Recently, Saudi Arabia has developed a course to change its criminal justice system and make it more relevant to modern aspects of living. This was primarily affected by politics and culture, as according to Alsharif (2018), both late King Abdullah and the country’s citizens have shown support for a shift towards laws that would support human rights. The international community and nation’s activists highlighted this legal issue. Thus, the culture and its recent trends have impacted the development of Saudi Arabia’s legal system.
Conclusion
Overall, the US, Germany, and Saudi Arabia have different historical and cultural backgrounds. Due to this fact, countries have developed varied criminal justice systems. Most notably, the US has combined civil and common law traditions because of its connection to European countries in the 1800s. Saudi Arabia was primarily affected by religion, and it remains the primary guide applied to criminal justice. However, both countries are experiencing a cultural shift towards a less rigid approach to punishments.
The model of a political society in which law restrains and guides the implementation of power by rulers dates from the early stages of systematic thought in the Western world. The rule-of-law expression is not of ancient roots. It is said that it was popularized in the mid-nineteenth century by Albert Venn Dicey, the Vinerian Professor at Oxford and prominent commentator on the English Constitution (Cochrane, et al 12). But the ideal was articulated in the ancient world in a variety of forms of language. Aristotle in his Politics writes that.
he who bids the law rule may be considered to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds a constituent of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion distorts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. (Cochrane, et al 203).
The last sentence has been translated even more remarkably:
“Accordingly law is intelligence without appetite” (Skoll, 23)
A lot of the incidents of our political tradition most intensely impressed on our consciousness concerned expressions of the rule of law. In Magna Carta the king promises the barons that he will not “proceed with force” against any free man, “except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land” (Cochrane, et al 245). In the thirteenth century, Bracton is found declaring that even the king rules sub Deo et lege, “under God and the law” (Pustilnik, 34). More instantly relevant is the career of the notion in seventeenth-century England and in the writings of the eighteenth-century philosophies in Western Europe (Pustilnik, 34). It may be beyond that the notion of a rule of law makes its manifestation in modern Western history as a radical doctrine. The American and French Revolutions may in some sense be observed as its progeny. It is clear, for example, that Beccaria famous Essay on Crimes and Punishments, a powerful eighteenth-century espousal of the rule of law in criminal justice, comprises a frontal assault on the practices of oppression in his time. “Change in the level of punishment brought about through particular linkage between social structural change” (Melosi, 2) The rule-of-law concept possesses not only a long historical custom but also the attributes of surrounding extraordinarily broad areas of public activity and of conveying differing and at times conflicting understandings and meanings.
It would need an ambition far exceeding the purposes of this explanation to attempt a canvass of all the understandings and applications that have been proposed for the authority ideal (Skoll, 131). For that reason, the scope of these comments will be limited to areas that, although wide and of great complexity, take up only a portion of the terrain ordinarily claimed for the rule of law. At its core, the rule of law is concerned with defining the relations between citizens and their administration and, to an important extent, the dealings of citizens to each other. These remarks, though, are restricted almost entirely to problems of containing exercises of power by public officials within appropriate legal norms expressed in rules or through other devices that constitute the battery of the rule of law (Pustilnik, 34). No thought will be given to the role of legality in defining contractual and commercial relations of private parties, although its contributions in stabilizing such relations have historically prompted some of the strongest support for the rule of law. The duty of citizens, implied in the rule of law, to reveal fidelity and obedience to legitimate law; although, as succeeding remarks may demonstrate, epidemic breach of the law by members of liberal societies may make difficult, and sometimes unfeasible, enforcement of the law’s obligations on those officials who brandish the public force.
The comments that follow do not deal primarily with the rights of individuals bogged down in the legal process. Such questions are often associated to the issues now under thought, and indeed one can argue that respect for the systemic values advanced by the rule of law makes it all the more likely that human rights will be appreciated. The stress, however, is on the formal aspects of law than on substantive rights (Cochrane, et al 45). Although the two areas are regularly inextricably tangled, there are many universal issues arising from the administration of criminal justice, often deserted and of great significance that do not directly and honestly impose on the substantive rights of persons (Skoll, 56).
Maybe the most obvious restriction on the scope of the present remarks is that which limits them mainly to the areas of criminal justice. The readiest clarification of the limitation, of course, is the limited competence of the writer. A more substantive case for the focus on criminal justice can perhaps be made. If that is the case, it might well begin with a scrutiny of Montesquieu: “It is… on the goodness of criminal laws that the liberty of the subject principally depends,” he wrote in The Spirit of Laws” (Cochrane, et al 34). The knowledge already obtained… concerning the surest regulations to be observed in criminal judgments, is more attractive than any other thing in the world.” The declaration, calculated to bring joy to teachers of criminal law, merits a minute of serious consideration by others. According to Akers, criminal and delinquent behaviors’ is acquired, repeated and changed by the same process as conforming behavior (Akers, 115). The legality ideal tackles its sternest tests in the areas of criminal justice for a huge number of reasons. Primararily, the suggestion of chance state power are mainly somber here because of the harshness of the sanctions administrated by the criminal law and of the status-degrading potency of criminal events. Second, the threat of crime and the indignation it produces often tempt officials to commit and the public to approve negligence toward, and sometimes pay no attention to, the legality of their efforts at crime repression (Skoll, 12).
But more needs to be said. A basic end of a legal system in a liberal society is to add to conditions consistent with the development of a powerful sense of independence and personhood in its members. Individuals capable of directing their own lives and fortune and of making their aid to civic well-being Most lines of action in a society are conventional (Akers, 34). These fundamental objectives are put in danger by uncontrolled criminality and by subjective responses of countervailing power by public officers or by laws as unsure in their meanings and applications as to deteriorate the sense of security of individual members of society. furthermore, the criminal justice system is the great educator. What large numbers of the populace know or believe about the legal order is resultant principally from their comments of and sometimes participation in the criminal justice system. Such impressions therefore are influential determinants of the levels of trustworthiness to the law demonstrated by the population. For those attracted to sacrifice the values of authority while pursuing substantive objectives in other areas of public policy, suggestions on the effect of such erosions of the rule of law on the management of criminal justice might well induce clear-headed second thoughts.
An approach which is well worth discussing in this paper is made by the social bond or social control theory. As an alternative to looking for issues that make people become unlawful, those hypotheses try to explain why people do not become criminal. Akers identified four main characteristics: “attachment to others”, “belief in moral validity of rules”, “commitment to achievement” and “involvement in conventional activities” (Akers, 12). The more a person uses those characters, the less are the chances that he or she turns out to be deviant (or criminal). Conversely if those factors are not there in a person, it is more likely that he or she may become criminal. Akers expanded on this theory, with the suggestion that a person with little self control is more likely to turn out to be criminal. An easy example: someone wants to have a big yacht, but does not have the income to buy one. If the person who cannot put forth self-control, he will try to acquire the yacht (or the wealth for it) in an illegal way; while a person with high self-control will (most likely) wait or deny themselves that want. Social bonds, through peers, parents, and others, can have a contradictory effect on one’s low self-control (Pustilnik, 38). A person who belongs to the low socio-economic stratum and question that makes a distinction between families with criminal children from persons who are not criminal is the control used by parents.
In conclusion, these remarks are not presented as an exercise in jurisprudential investigation (Skoll, 167). In its place, the focus will be placed on institutional performance, in an effort to gain more comprehensive understandings of rule-of-law problems revealed in an operational legal order, to evaluate the vigor of the legality ideal in a wide range of institutional contexts, and to query how that vigor may be renewed where it appears to fade. Nothing in this attempt is planned to challenge the significance of jurisprudential theory in these areas. Much more of jurisprudential theory and the construction of jurisprudential models relating to the formal aspects of law are required. These remarks reflect a confidence that theoretical assemblies in the legal discipline are strengthened and gain improved relevance when firmly based on sound understandings of institutional realism; and, indeed, lacking that, theory is frequently in peril of irrelevancy (Skoll, 134).
During his ruminations on the rule of law, Dicey allocated first importance to what he called the “predominance of the legal spirit” (Cochrane, et al 78). It was not a novel insight. Aristotle previously had offered an analogous observation. The rule of law, in any case, is a creature of political authority, which is to say that the validity ideal rests on actions and attitudes of public officials whose powers are, in turn, incomplete and directed by it. It positions in the double relationship of doubt toward and reliance on governmental power. The proposal has proved contradictory to many persons rising from totalitarian regimes and can be made comprehensible only by reference to tradition, spirit, and habit so embedded, Skoll’s aim in his book, and his accomplishment is to reshuffle our perceptual fields, to confront the deadening effects and dogma of common sense, and to request us to see differently so that we may act differently. So much of law and public policy turns on queries of competing descriptions and analogies, and challenging any scheming analogy is always a perilous business. We enter an open room of rethinking and negotiation, a space of ethical reflection and political effort, a space where we have to rely not on rules so as much as we have to rely on our own moral instinct, our perplexing questions, our assurance to the dignity of persons, our faith in fairness. Skoll cuts with accuracy to the cerebral roots of our thinking about criminal justice, turns over levels of bewilderment and myth that currently says aloud criminal justice policy, and opens a window winds to blow.
Works Cited
Akers, Ronald. “A Social Learning Theory of Crime”. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. 1994.
Cochrane, John. Melville, Gaynor. Marsh, Ian. “Criminal Justice: An Introduction to Philosophies, Theories and Practice”. Routledge, 2004.
Melosi. “Gazette of Morality and Social Whip”, Sage. 1970.
Pustilnik, Amanda. “Prisons of the Mind. Social Value and Economic Inefficiency in the Criminal Justice Response to Mental Illness”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 96, 2005.
Skoll, Geoffrey. “Contemporary Criminology and Criminal Justice Theory. Evaluating Justice Systems in Capitalist Societies”. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
The functioning of the criminal justice system is aimed at preventing people from committing offences and protecting victims. This goal shapes the strategies of many governmental organizations. There are several questions that are debated by lawyers and policy-makers. In particular, they attempt to determine whether deterrence or the threat of punishment can impact the level of recidivism or crime within the society.
Moreover, these professionals discuss if it is possibly only to incarcerate people in order to increase the security in the community. This policy is often described by a very short phase like to “lock up criminals and throw away the key” (Withrow, 2013, p. 28). Overall, it is possible to argue that mere incarceration of an individual does not help him/her to reintegrate into normal life.
Policy-makers should focus on the development of rehabilitation programs which safeguard people against various risks such as drug abuse. In many cases, this approach can be used as a substitute to incarceration.
Nevertheless, this strategy can be acceptable only when one speaks about the people who do not pose a threat to others. Furthermore, legislators should remember that the welfare of victims and community safety should be the top priorities for them. These are the main issues that should be discussed more closely.
The use of deterrence in the United States and the efficiency of this approach
Overall, the impact of deterrence on recidivism has been closely examined by many criminologists. This issue is particularly relevant to the United States where incarceration rates have increased dramatically within the last three decades (Johnson & Dipietro, 2012, p. 812). According to the findings of researchers, the prison population grew by approximately 475 percent (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012, p. 289).
This tendency is of great concern to policy-makers who want to reduce the costs of maintaining prisons (Johnson & Dipietro, 2012, p. 812). Such a trend has not been observed in other advanced countries.
To some degree, the growing incarceration rates can be explained by the emphasis on punishment which is supposed to prevent a person from acting illegally in the future. Modern criminologists attempt to test this assumption since it is very disputable.
In order to understand this question, one should look people who represent the prison population of the United States. Moreover, researchers examine their behavior after their release from prison. These data attract close attention of sociologists. It should be kept in mind that people, who committed violent crimes, constitute less than half of the total prison population (Kahan, 2008, p. 167).
The critical issue is that many of people, who have been found guilty of some non-violent offences such as drunk driving, larceny, or drug distribution, can become more dangerous to the society when they are released from prison. The evidence collected by researchers suggests that deterrence does not reduce the risk of recidivism.
This argument is particularly applicable to non-violent crimes that are related to drug or alcohol abuse (Laws & O’Donohue, 2012, p. 617). It is possible to mention that approximately two thirds of released criminals get re-arrested in within three years (Arnold, 2011, p. 133). In turn, the empirical data suggest that well-developed orientation programs can reduce the risk of recidivism (Laws & O’Donohue, 2012, p. 617).
This is one of the main aspects that can be identified. Therefore, one can say that deterrence strategy is not quite effective. It should not be regarded as the only solution to existing problems. More likely, this policy can be viewed as one of the factors that contribute to the growing number of recidivist crimes.
Incarceration and rehabilitation
There are several studies which are aimed at determining which approaches to criminal justice can prevent a person from committing offences after the release. Many researchers attempt to determine whether incarceration can be sufficient for rehabilitation of criminals.
For instance, the researcher carried out by Wikoff, Linhorst, and Morani (2012) indicates that the participation in re-entry programs can help former convicts reintegrate into the community. Furthermore, the availability of educational or training programs is also critical essential for minimizing the possibility of subsequent offences (Wikoff et al., 2012). People, who can access such programs, are less likely to be convicted in the future.
These are some of the main aspects that should be identified. Moreover, the study by Hung-En Sung (2003) suggests that rehabilitation programs is essential for preventing prisoners from taking committing other offences that can be attributed to drug abuse.
Mere incarceration does not prompt people to reintegrate into the community. In most cases, it cannot improve the behavior of a person. More likely, this form of crime prevention can be substituted by compulsory rehabilitation programs. This is one of the approaches that can be taken.
These examples indicate the threat of punishment is not a sufficient for stopping crime or recidivism. These data should be considered by policy-makers and legislators since they are responsible for improving the criminal justice system. Moreover, mere incarceration is not effective for changing the behavior of a person who committed an offence.
Therefore, one cannot say that by merely imprisoning people, the state cannot make the society more secure. This is one of the main points that can be made. This issue is important because the growing prison population imposed a heavy burden on taxpayers. This is another aspect that should not be disregarded by people who work in the criminal justice system. They should not forget about the economic effects of their policies.
Violent crimes
Nevertheless, it is critical to remember that there are several important exceptions that should not be overlooked. In particular, there are people, who committed serious felonies, and they can pose a threat to the community. For instance, the recidivism rates among released child molesters are very high even though these people receive psychiatric assistance.
For instance, approximately, 5.3 percent of 9000 sex offended were subsequently re-arrested for the same crime (Levenson, Sandler, & Freeman, 2012, p. 555). Certainly, this percentage does not comprise the majority of all cases. Nevertheless, one should look at these qualitative data from the perspective of potential victims who should be safeguarded against possible risks.
Additionally, the actual number of crimes committed by these people can be much larger. The problem is that these rates are based on the data collected by law-enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, in many cases, the victims of this abuse do not report to the police.
This argument is relevant if one speaks about children who were victims of molestation (Waller. 2008, p. 264). This is one of the risks that should be overlooked by legislators and law-enforcement officers.
Discussion
This information is important for showing that very often, it is necessary to isolate some individuals from the society. Any other policy can be viewed as a form of irresponsibility and the government cannot accept it. Therefore, under such circumstances, incarceration can be the only solution available to policy-makers. There are many other cases like aggravated murder, human trafficking, and so forth.
Under such circumstance, legislators are obliged to protect former victims and other people. Therefore, one can say that sometimes deterrence and incarceration are important for preventing the crime.
This principle remains valid nowadays because police-officers or psychiatrists cannot accurately determine whether people convicted of serious felonies pose a threat to others. Certainly, these examples do not imply that every person, who has been convicted of a serious felony, should be sentenced to life imprisonment. It is not possible to make generalizations about such cases.
Conclusion
Overall, this discussion suggests that the functioning of criminal justice system cannot be reduced only to deterrence and incarceration. The main issue is that the state has to help a former offender integrate into the society. For instance, various rehabilitation programs, which are intended for offenders struggling with drug or alcohol abuse, can reduce the risk of later convictions.
The statistical evidence suggests that deterrence does affect the levels of crime or recidivism within a society. Nonetheless, there are circumstances when incarceration is the only option available to the state. Therefore, policy-makers should accurately identify the cases when incarceration can be substituted. This is the main principle that they should follow. In this way, they can make American society more secure.
Reference List
Arnold, D. (2011). Imind: The Art of Change and Self-therapy. New York, NY: AuthorHouse.
Hung-En Sung, H. K. (2003). Differential Impact of Deterrence as. Rehabilitation as Drug Interventions on Recidivism After 36 Months. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(3/4), 95-108.
Johnson, B., & Dipietro, S. (2012). The power of diversion intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50(3), 811-850.
Kahan, D. (2008). “Punishment Incommensurability”. In B. Waller (Ed.), You decide!: current debates in criminal justice (pp. 167-175). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Laws, D., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Levenson, J. S., Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2012). Failure-to-register laws and public safety: An examination of risk factors and sex offense recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 555-565.
Waller, B. (2008). Should There be Laws Requiring Registration and Community Notification for Convicted Sex Offenders. In B. Waller (Ed.), You decide!: current debates in criminal justice (pp. 253-267). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289-299.
Withrow, B. (2013). Research Methods in Crime and Justice. New York, NY: Routledge.