American life is characterized by a massive divide between the poor and the rich. It is this division that brings a lot of inequalities in the country. In essence, this justifies why those who are poor and sidelined result in crime just to sustain themselves. Reiman and Leighton (90) define criminals and crime in terms of poverty, uneven distribution of wealth, and a failed system of criminal justice. This skewed governance does not help in safeguarding the country from a threat to sustainable living and acquisition of wealth.
Ferguson and Marzilli (11) introduce yet another concept of crime; the white-collar crime, and note that it involves intellectuals. Therefore, poverty and inequality may not necessarily mean that the sidelined and poor in the country are the only ones indulging themselves in crime. Some well to do people are also criminals. It is only that they do this using a high level of intelligence. Ferguson and Marzilli (11) offer an example of a person taking money from investors by telling them that he or she would invest their money.
Prison
As the title suggests, the rich continue to get rich, and the poor head to prisons. As highlighted by Reiman and Leighton (90), the resultant effect of inequality and poverty is a crime and the emergence of criminals. They are then holed in prisons, which do not help due to poor management and ineffectiveness. The criminal justice system has failed, and as such, the poor find themselves spending a lot of time in prison while the rich who also steal get away scot-free (Reiman & Leighton 328).
There is a negative notion that prisons are preserves of the poor. With an effective criminal justice system, the rich who steal in the most intelligent way should also be taken to prison. Ferguson and Marzilli (57) qualify the use of prison and write that while they may not be the ultimate resort, they help the criminals and drug addicts with potential rehabilitation of the criminal and treatment for those who use drugs.
Guns
Evidently, criminals have got a way of sustaining themselves. One way is by use of force and guns as weapons. As amplified by Reiman and Leighton (23), the failed nature of criminal justice helped the criminals’ access guns and other weapons at will. Boger and Welger (96) categorically note that 64% of murders committed in America are executed using firearms. Most of these are handguns to mean that there are plenty of firearms that are held illegally by people, especially those who are poor. According to Reiman and Leighton (39), the failure to control crime can be blamed on an ineffective system of justice. There are no effective measures that help in controlling poverty, which may lead to crime.
Drugs
Crime and drugs are inseparable. There is a close correlation between poverty and crime and the use of drugs. Reiman and Leighton (34) note that most poor people find solace in abusing drugs before even turning into crime. Boger and Wegner (96) note that the increase of violence in American society is due to the rampant use of drugs. This implies that the use of drugs, poverty, and crime are very well related, and if the crime is to be minimized, anti-drug abuse and poverty reduction campaigns should be reinforced.
White-collar crime and death due to negligence from being treated as criminals
There is a division in opinion in regard to white-collar crime in the United States. While some support prosecution of highly placed persons or defend white-collar crime, there are others who object it. The general view is that all crimes should be prosecuted, thereby defending white-collar crime. The following are four objections to white-collar crime and subsequent counter-argument.
Objection one: Intent
Behaviors of executives in an organization resulting in particular harm cannot be categorized as intended murder. Even when the executives act negligently, it may not be put as a regulatory offense; rather, it falls in the category of criminal law. However, people in an organization can only be liable for an offense that is foreseeable and not an offense that could have been controlled (Reiman & Leighton, 74). For example, if workers continue to work in a mine that is likely to collapse, that may be put as foreseeable harm. However, if the hazardous risks result from bad policies in the organization, then the executives have a regulatory offense.
Objection two: Direct harm
It is more terrifying to be harmed directly by a person than being harmed impersonally and indirectly (Reiman & Leighton, 75). For example, having money unfairly or having the property taken is not the same as dying. This is despite the fact that the felony committed is equal. However, the defenders are right to put the same on the same level.
Objection three: Legitimate Productive Activity
It is an eviler to harm a person during an illegitimate action than harming a person in a legitimate action (Reiman & Leighton, 76). All risks should be avoided irrespective of perceived laxity in safety precautions. The claim that face-to-face harm is more illegitimate than precaution safety may only be right in punishment measure. However, it does not mean that there should be no measures to curb some of the corporate risks.
Objection four: Free Consent
The harm that is inflicted on persons during working has some degree of consent simply because the person consented to work in the organization (Reiman & Leighton, 76). For example, hazardous risks are not as severe as harm inflicted face-to-face because the employee had agreed to work in the organization in the first place; thus a free consent. However, free consent has some degree to be considered. Free consent can only be the case when a person was made aware of the risks involved and still offered to take the job.
The US has the largest prison population in the world. Why is this good or bad? What could be done to reduce the prison population?
The crime rate in the United States of America is very high. In addition, the prison population in the US is among the largest, meaning that the rate of crime in the US is high. The following are merits and demerits of having such a prison population:
Merits
Basing on statistics for the year 2008, the 2.3 million offenders in the country provide a high level of prison labor. If this population could be utilized well, it means that there are high possibilities of turning this labor into productivity.
This number is a testimony that the security measures are intense and may reduce the crime rate in the country.
With offenders being held in prison for a long, the overall cost brought about by crime would significantly be reduced.
Demerits
The huge number is a testimony that criminal justice has failed and paints a negative picture of the country.
Many young persons and productive people are eliminated from active economic participation.
How to reduce the crime prison population
There is an urgent need to carry out reforms in the criminal justice system. As such, the justice department ought to do away with ineffective sentencing policies. The latter endangers the safety of members of the public. People who have been arrested for petty crimes should be given lesser jail terms instead of holding them for long in prison. It is also essential to have correction facilities rather than committing anyone to full jail terms.
What is meant by victimless crime? Describe three types of victimless crimes and explain how these crimes should be handled.
Victimless crime
This refers to illegal behavior that necessarily does not have violence in it or does not pose a threat to any rights of a person. Fernandez (25) underscores that some adult involvements like gambling, drugs, and prostitution fall under the wider categorization of victimless crimes. However, this does not imply that the behavior is acceptable or does not attract arrests by police; only that no particular outsider is involved as part of the behavior. This term has been misused in recent years, especially when it is used to mean that there was no serious involvement (Fernandez 25).
Types of victimless crimes
Crime without a victim
This perhaps defines what a victimless crime is, and it is where the person committing the crime cause harm in general terms, but no victim is involved. This crime only affects society, and the best way is for the government to tighten laws involving general misconduct.
Moral crimes
These are crimes that only affect the moral standing of a person and still are liable to prosecution. For example, sodomy is prohibited, but in essence, it comes when there are two consenting adults. Others include vagrancy, loitering, and public drunkenness, which may not involve or cause harm to anyone but can harm social order.
Crimes against the state
These are the crimes whereby the offended is the state and not an individual. An example of this is the lack of tax compliance when it is only the government money that is lost. Rape is also an example of victimless crime whereby even though there is a perpetrator who can be identified; essentially, it is the state which prosecutes the person.
Works Cited
Boger, John. & Judith, Welch Wegner. Race, poverty, and American cities. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Ferguson, John & Alan, Marzilli. White-Collar Crime. New York: InfoBase Publishing, 2010.
Fernandez, Justin. Victimless Crimes: Crime, Justice, and Punishment. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2002.
Reiman, Jeffrey & Paul, Leighton. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice (9th edition). New York: Pearson Education, 2009.
The impact of women in the criminal justice system has been very instrumental. There are many women that have opted to purse the carrier on criminal justice as a result of the inspiration to learn about law so that they can effectively apply it in the real life situations. A degree in law is a perfect choice for a carrier in the criminal justice system as it offers an individual many opportunities to choose from.
Being a Juris Doctor is among the options that one can settle for. To be more effective in exercising ones responsibility, one should ensure that one identifies his/her passion so that he/she makes the right decision on where one would like to work. In addition, relevant past experience is paramount and when one happens to migrate to a foreign country. My past experience as a Juris doctor in Philippines equipped me adequately for my first job in U.S. as an Immigration and Naturalization service (INS) which is currently referred as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
This provided a good experience for me since I was in a position to do what I liked. Satisfaction in the workplace ensures high performances as one feels more motivated to work harder, due to the high morale that is exhibited in such a workplace. Thus, such women that have opted to pursue a carrier out of passion and who have been successful in being incorporated in appropriate positions that give them a conducive environment and in particular in the criminal justice system has enabled it accomplish a lot as they have executed their duty with passion and diligence and assisted the department realize most of its objectives. This has also been facilitated by lack of discrimination of the female workers in the system (Angel, 2002).
Biasness in the criminal justice system is prevalent. This is as a result of the existence of the various prejudices associated with ones background, culture among others. The most important thing that one should ensure is to make sure that he/she executes ones duty as per the immigration rules since doing contrary to that can result to one losing his/her job. When one is treated unfairly, the management has improvised appropriate mechanism referred to as Equal Employment Opportunity where one can go to complain.
To ensure that the employees in the U.SCIS are adequately equipped to exercise their duties with proficiency, the agency makes sure that it gives its workforce continuous trainings to enhance their skills so that to expedite their services more effectively.
The criminal justice system like any other department exhibits the stereotypes that regard women as being less competent than men. The sexual harassment policy in the department is well effective as there are no instances that I have experienced of sexual harassment as it is prevalent in some other sectors. This has greatly boosted communications among the migration officers across the gender which has greatly enhanced team work and overall productivity.
Good relationships among both sexes in the criminal justice system have guaranteed harmonies working conditions for both parties where one sex does not feel threatened by the other one. Such an atmosphere has enabled the men to feel at ease even when they realize that their counter female workmates are more proficient in their jobs than them (Stevenson, 2008).
To enhance the performance of criminal justice system, the agency should make sure that it educates the public and especially the women that a job in criminal justice system is like any other job and women can perform as good as men do or better. Through this strategy the misperception that a carrier in the criminal justice system is for the men will be an issue of the past.
Reference List
Angel, S. (2002). Women in the Cotemporary World: Prentice Hall: New York.
Stevenson, J. (2008). The Stereotypes and Women Harassment in Workplace. London: Cambridge University.
In the recent past, the number of mentally ill people taking part in the criminal justice system has been increasing. People with mental illness are convoluted in the criminal justice system for several reasons since they cannot control their situations. Providing services to this community enhance fairness and equity in society.
Most of the providers have been serving the affected individuals for quite some time and have gained immense experience in the field. Consequently, many people with criminal records enter mental health services system through referral ways such as crisis services, social services departments, human services agencies, educational programs, families, and individual-referrals (Cole & Smith, 2010).
Majority of mentally ill persons referred from courts, probation departments, and jails are not necessarily dangerous or violent. This implies that their participation in the criminal justice system may signal a higher serious illness or immediate attention for comprehensives services.
Also, such individuals have similar needs as other individuals with mental illness on the current case records (Sales, 2007). For this reason, providing services to this group does not interfere with serving other criminals, and may curb future arrest or incarceration.
The integration of mental health service providers in the criminal justice system addresses the needs of people with mental illness. Such a relationship of the groups enhances communication and coordination of the issues affecting the mentally ill individuals.
Furthermore, providers need clarifications towards the types of information that can or should be made available within the criminal justice system. At the same time, the manner of conquering the challenges and obstacles interwoven in mental health and criminal justice services are addressed.
Criminal justice system involvement in the issue is attributed to the stigma of mental illness and the degree of transparency in service delivery systems. For instance, the chances of arresting mentally ill persons are higher due to their deeds and conditions.
On the other hand, many individuals with mental illness have no sources of funds, which may make them be detained because they cannot afford even minimal bails (Sales, 2007). Additionally, such people are not allowed to be released on personal recognizance.
Repeatedly, individuals with mental illness are usually charged with more serious crimes than their counterparts convicted with similar behavior. Moreover, people with mental illness are charged, convicted and sentenced severely in comparison to other individuals accused of the same crimes. Apart from that issue, persons with mental illness spend two to five times longer periods in jail than people implicated with no mental disorder (Cole & Smith, 2010).
At the time, innovative approaches have been constructed aimed at disrupting the cycle of arrest and re-arrest of persons with mental illness popularly referred to as criminalization of persons with mental illness. Police officers have been receiving training in the applicable treatment of persons with mental illness.
For instance, correctional services have developed programs for improved identifications, treatment and freeing of persons with mental illness. The courts have incorporated programs to channel persons with mental illness from the criminal justice systems into treatments. As such, community rehabilitation programs have been working with mental health providers to address the needs of people with mental disorders.
Despite the initiatives adopted, challenges have emanated in court-ordered treatment for persons with mental disability since they may have an opportunity to change incarceration through programs such as diversions and probations. When an individual is implicated with a criminal offense, the individual becomes a subject to the authority of the criminal justice system.
Measures such as probation and diversion are likely to be included as some form of treatment mandated or ordered, by a criminal court at various point in a criminal proceeding. Often, treatments mandated are usually diverse to factor in many options available. Therefore, the considerations made by a court will depend on the circumstances surrounding the individual.
Effective programs have also been designed to work actively in touching the treatment plans developed by health providers. The programs involve means of offering a treatment plan and designing a written crisis plan to the affected individuals. On the other hand, the plans of health care directives should reflect the individual treatment choice (Cole & Smith, 2010).
Victims’ rights movement has been formed for the legal protection of complainants and defendants in courts. Currently, almost every state has either passed laws or adopted constitutional amendments to assist victims in a criminal hearing. Initially, Wisconsin established a bill of rights for victims and provided funding for victim assistance programs.
This was followed by California, which borrowed the concepts developed in Wisconsin. Crime victims and victims’ rights organizations pushed for all states to work on protecting victims’ rights. Their main concern was that several victims were disregarded and to some extent mistreated by criminal justice systems since they only focused on the protection of the legal rights of defendants (Sales, 2007).
While it is true that victims’ bill of right differs from one state to the other, they all require that victims be treated with respect and fairness by police officers, prosecutors, and other officials. Also, the police officers should notify victims about the progress of their cases from the investigation stages to the time when the criminal will be released from prison. This will ensure that mentally ill individuals are treated fairly and reasonably.
References
Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2010). The American system of criminal justice (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sales, B. D. (2007). The Criminal justice system. New York: Plenum Press.
Criminal justice systems play a crucial role in various societies. They interpret and enforce laws in various jurisdictions to ensure that all citizens coexist peacefully. In the past, criminal justice systems were forced to rely on basic law enforcement tactics because most criminals were not well versed with sophisticated tactics.
As a result, more criminal justice systems are relying on proactive techniques to deal with various law enforcement challenges within their jurisdictions (Peak, 2008, p. 67). Despite all these efforts, criminal justice professionals operate in a hostile environment due to low levels of public trust. In the past, rigid structural problems discouraged criminal justice systems from engaging with the public on various issues.
However, current criminal justice departments have realized the benefits of working with various community stakeholders to attain positive outcomes in their operations. This essay analyses present and future crime trends to determine how they affect the operations of the criminal justice system.
Current and Future Trends that Affect Criminal Justice System
Many modern criminal justice systems have rigid structures which make it difficult for them to adapt to new changes. They have not been able to adapt their internal systems to deal with modern issues such as globalization, multiculturalism, technological developments, and changes in demographic compositions.
However, many criminal justice agencies have not changed their recruiting practices to hire highly skilled professionals who can anticipate new crime trends (Peak, 2008, p. 71). Sophisticated crimes such as cyber fraud, smuggling, corporate crimes, drug trafficking, and money laundering are committed by intelligent criminals who know how to avoid detection.
Therefore, the current situation requires criminal justice systems to push for the adoption of new laws to ensure their professionals adhere to higher standards of practice to enable them to discharge their duties more effectively.
Many criminals exploit laxity and incompetence by criminal justice systems to commit various offenses because they know they can easily get away with their crimes (Peak, 2008, p. 77). Therefore, law enforcement agencies need to acquire high-quality surveillance systems that gather information about the operations of various criminals to find out specific activities that they engage in.
Even though new laws have been introduced to combat serious crimes, law enforcement officers in some jurisdictions lack appropriate skills required to solve complex criminal acts.
For instance, both junior and senior law enforcement officers need to acquire forensic and technological skills to make them more competent in their duties. They also need to undergo constant training programs to keep them more focused on their duties. Consequently, this approach will motivate them to achieve better outcomes in their responsibilities.
In some instances, various criminal justice agencies do not have clear mandates that make them understand specific functions they are supposed to perform by existing laws. Therefore, their day to day operations is hampered by high levels of bureaucracy, which make it difficult for them to perform their duties freely.
This is exemplified by high levels of mutual suspicion that exists between law enforcement agencies on one hand and law courts on the other (Peak, 2008, p.80).
It is important for all agencies that are part of the criminal justice system to share information and resources so that they deal with various factors that impact on law enforcement more effectively. Thus, courts, police, and correctional departments need to collaborate to improve the quality of results they get from their operations.
There is also an increase in sociological factors that cause some people in some communities to resort to crime to achieve their ambitions (Waller, 2009, 93). For instance, criminal justice strategies have failed to address specific factors that encourage minors to engage in criminal activities in various societies.
This shows that the current criminal justice system fails to appreciate social factors that allow criminal gangs to use children to commit different criminal activities in various places. In some instances, underage convicts are housed in the same facilities as adult convicts who influence them negatively.
As a result, after their release, they are encouraged to engage in more serious crimes because they do not fear the possible consequences they are likely to experience from their actions.
Therefore, courts and correctional service systems lack appropriate programs that reform and rehabilitate young people that engage in crime. For a long time, criminal justice systems have focused more on punishing offenders rather than reforming them, and this has made it difficult for them to register positive outcomes.
Criminal Justice System in Changing Societies
One of the most significant changes taking place in various countries is the increase in multiculturalism. More importantly, globalization has made it possible for people from different cultural backgrounds to migrate and settle in new territories, away from their homes (Waller, 2009, 98).
Criminal justice organizations stand to benefit by changing the manner they do things to make people from different demographic groups to have favorable opinions about them.
This approach will enable the criminal justice system to improve its capacity to deal with various law enforcement issues that affect people from specific population segments. Therefore, law enforcement officers need to engage with people in such populations to solve different challenges that they face.
Law enforcement agencies need to develop partnerships with people living in various communities to fight crime. This approach will encourage people that are constantly victimized by criminals to share information with the police to ensure individuals who unleash mayhem on innocent people get punished severely.
Moreover, criminal justice agencies need to adopt service-oriented approaches to demystify their operations to improve public perceptions towards them. This approach will encourage more communities to develop appropriate strategies on their own to protect themselves from vicious criminal gangs. As a result, law enforcement officers will be able to predict and prevent different criminal incidents before they happen (Waller, 2009, 107).
A combination of tactical awareness, effective laws, high-quality surveillance methods, and community policing programs will help criminal justice systems to perform their duties more effectively in the future. Lastly, collaborations between police officers and community stakeholders will enable both parties to overcome various challenges that hurt law and order.
Conclusion
Criminal justice systems need to do away with bureaucratic practices to enhance their efficiency. Also, all agencies under the criminal justice system should collaborate and share information more to achieve better outcomes in their operations. They need to anticipate various challenges that are likely to impact on their current and future performance in different jurisdictions they operate in.
More importantly, law enforcement agencies need to adopt modern technological solutions to strengthen their tactical capabilities. Lastly, they should engage with community stakeholders to obtain crucial information regarding various law enforcement issues they are facing.
References
Peak, K.J. (2008). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Waller, B.N. (2009). You decide! Current debates in criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
The main duties of any criminal justice system should include law enforcement and ensuring that each individual in the society gets fair and equal justice. To ensure the success of these aims, all the components of the justice system including the courts, the police, and the correctional section need to work in harmony. In instances where there is no harmony amongst them or the activities of any of them is not well coordinated, controversies would always arise. This occurrence is very common and accounts for the failure of the criminal justice systems to effectively deal with the rise in crime levels (Peak, 2010).
Even those who are in the system agree that fragments exist in it. Once an arrested person reaches the courtroom, the judicial officers may get him or her convicted even though they disagree with the actions of the police. The judges and magistrates at times do not give holistic rulings while taking into consideration all the components to retribute, deter, rehabilitate, and incapacitate. This makes the defense attorneys disagree with the decisions citing the unequal treatment of the plaintiffs. This is also another source of friction.
The attitude of each of the components of criminal justice or the way they look at crimes and the convicted people also contributes to conflicts of interest. The police have a major role in law enforcement. This makes them put more emphasis on protecting the general population. The courts evaluate and compare sides, the accuser, and the accused. The facilities tasked with corrections just put an emphasis on the individual charged with the offense. The main aims of each of the components usually lead to frictions since they are not similar (McNeely, 2004).
Research on police functions and effectiveness
Criminal justice systems are an important component of any given society that requires professional administration and handling. To achieve this, there is a need to do more research on the subject to ensure its success.
The police have various functions but the most common one is countering serious crimes committed. They have a duty to work in fairness and with integrity for the public to have confidence in them. While the police are discharging their duty, they should use as little force as possible depending on the situation at hand for the public not to feel that they are brutal. This would also ensure that they are conforming to the rules of law. Another police function would be resolving conflicts between people and protecting the lives as well as property. This calls for a lot of emphasis on research of the police’s ability to discharge these duties.
More research should focus on methods that would ensure all the components of justice administration work harmoniously. The methods should also ensure the administration of fair justice to all parties and meeting the needs of each of the components (Peak, 2010). There should be research on administrative policies that would work closely with the public and other criminal justice components.
Research should focus on the ways to come up with training programs for the police to understand their duty to preserve democracy and functions according to the law. There should also be research on the laws that encourage a good relationship between the police and the public to ensure police get important information on time. Those carrying out the research should ensure that they take into consideration the views and opinions of each party to avoid impartiality.
A good criminal justice system ensures the smooth flow of activities in society due to fairness and security. The research carried out should ensure that the people the system is impacting on getting to understand it more and the components of the system work in harmony.
References
McNeely, C. (2004). Perceptions of the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, (3)1, 9-11.
Peak, K. (2010). Justice Administration: Police, courts, and corrections management. New Jersey, USA: Prentice hall.
The inquisitorial system was pioneered by the Roman Catholic Church in the medieval era, where the church used this system in its religious courts for prosecution of offenders and to reform the former system which was ecclesiastical. This system argued that one had to be caught in the act of committing a crime for him or her to be tried and a formal accusation was to be made by a witness of which people feared because the punishment for wrong accusations was very severe.
Under the inquisitorial system, an ecclesiastical court summoned and interrogated witnesses chosen randomly, and if the testimonies given convicted an individual of an offense, then he would be interrogated and given a verdict. The judge is in total control including investigating all facts of the case whether it favors both sides or not, but also either of them can appeal the judge’s decision. The intention of the judge is to collect facts, incriminating or exculpatory not to convict the defendant. It is used in countries with civil legal systems, which trace their origin to Roman law but other countries also use it for summary hearings like America.however, the inquisitorial system is used in matters of “criminal procedures and not for substantive law”.
Around the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church had emerged as the only influential church in West and Central Europe. The pope created a system of tribunals, with the then placed cardinals and other church officials, to operate them. They later developed into the Roman inquisition courts. This system was slowly adapted in England although the adversarial system continued applying for criminal cases. In the 19th century, many of the legal systems had changed and the inquisitorial system became more integrated into the European legal systems.
The adversarial system
The system is dominant in countries with common law systems; in particular, England which is the origin of common law in the Middle Ages and it passed it on British Empire’s former colonies. In medieval times, the adversarial system was the main legal system all over Europe, although at the beginning of the 12th century, the pope changed the system by introducing the inquisitorial procedure which meant that an ecclesiastical judge did not need an accusation to be filed but instead the court was to investigate and also interrogate witnesses and if there was substantial evidence, then the accused would be summoned for trial. The clergy started using this system, and the pope established tribunals to be run by the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.” The inquisitors acted in the name of the pope, hence the name the’ Papal Inquisition.” In addition, the system though applied to the baptized Christians was used to convict heretics who were wrongdoers’ ageists of the canon law. Later, the method spread out to Europe and France who adopted it in their lay courts. However, in England, the secular courts continued practicing the old system, although the ecclesiastical courts adopted the new system because common law had already become the dominant system.
“The Italian court system is formulated on Roman laws and the Napoleonic statute.” It is composed of both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Since the roman rule, it is the inquisitorial system that was being used but for the sake of handling the Maxi trial a trial against the Mafia in the years 1986-1987 changes were made, and the adversarial was integrated it the judicial system. This happened because the system has the feature of a plea bargain which reduces charges for the defendant if he pleads guilty or gives evidence to assist the judges to prosecute other criminals. Informants like Tomaso Buscetta made use of this system and assisted the authorities by giving information about the operations of the mafia that enabled the arrest of many members of the group. This lead to a lot of controversies because some people claimed it was not good for the justice system of Italy.
Under the adversarial system, the common law is created by the judges through precedential decisions made in court and tribunals. The adversarial system requires the jury to be neutral in examining evidence forwarded without getting involved, investigating witnesses and finding facts. It is traced back to medieval times when it was known as trial by combat; which was a way of settling disputes then. In cases where there were no witnesses, the two sides would fight and the winner proclaimed the winner of the case. The system which gradually disappeared in the 16th century was used by the Roman Empire before they came up with the inquisition system.
When describing this system, the focus is mainly on the three important elements, that is, the prosecution, defense and the court, although the first two dominate more in the system than the third. In this system, the accused is not questioned by the judge unless he so wishes to, although he is subjected to closer examination and can be convicted for perjury. A courtroom under this system is mainly like a battlefield because it emphasizes winning at all costs. It’s a battle between the advocates representing their parties. All evidence is allowed and it is the duty of the jury to ascertain the likelihood of the evidence. Rules of evidence are established on the basis of objections of the adversaries, although the judge may decide to remove any evidence he deems irrelevant. Furthermore, one had to be caught in the act or accused by a witness in order to be prosecuted. The other option was trial by combat which was not fair at all. Due to this inefficiency, some changes had to be done and the Catholic Church is the most influential and powerful then came up with a solution.
Differences between the two systems
There are various differences between the inquisitional and the adversarial systems. Scholars of the law argue that the differences appear in the way the cases are reviewed but the question remains whether the results are any different because mostly the results are similar hence it adds up as a matter of national pride. The inquisition proponents claim that the system is suited to social change and is also cheap for public protection, while adversarial system proponents argue the system protects a person’s rights. Further, whereas the adversarial system is mainly based on common law, the inquisitional system foundation is on civil law.
A major difference is the plea of the bargain; under the adversarial system, if a criminal defendant admits he has committed a crime; he can be allowed a plea of a bargain, which means a lesser charge and also saves the government time and expenses for the jury. The case goes on to the sentencing stage though the accused ought to have allocution of the offense because a sham affirmation cannot be established. The procedure was brought up in Italy for counterterrorism purposes and for use in the maxi trial against the mafia so that the defendants would provide information to the magistrates, though this has been challenged as a compromise to Italian justice.
In inquisitorial, the defendant has just provided yet another fact that is included in the evidence and the case remains intact This protects the defendant in case he was threatened to admit or his attorney is inexperienced especially if the defendant is poor. Its proponents argue that the power of the judges has already been limited by the assessors hence no injustice can occur.
Another difference occurs in making the final decision to convict or not. In the inquisitorial system, the final decision is made by many professionals and also lay assessors are involved, no defendant or prosecution is allowed to question the assessors to prevent biases. The judges vote after them that way they don’t also influence their decision. There has to be a two-thirds majority to convict a criminal. However, supporters of the adversarial system argue that their system is better because it allows agreeable resolution of conflicts by unearthing and pre-trial judgments in which uncontested evidence is relied upon and not used in the proceedings.
Legal experts also argue that the inquisitorial systems are too formal and don’t interact with the average person. They claim lawyers involved in adversarial cases have a good idea of the issues at hand because they have ample time to come up with the truth in the courtrooms and they are fully prepared through reviewing the evidence before presenting it in court making the defendant aware of what is happening. It is believed that trial by one’s age group is better than any inquisitor from the state; in particular, this is allowed in the United States.
The adversarial system is accused of failure in resolving procedural matters, for example, technological advances, taxation, finance and others. This happens when evidence produced is not understood due to inexperience or lack of knowledge and this would lead to unfair judgment. In the inquisitional system, the judge would have in previous instances had such technical cases hence would use his experience to handle the current case and hence, less manipulation or confusion would occur. Moreover, the justification is written down, so in case of newfound evidence, then it can be revised unlike in the other system no one knows what was said therefore appeal is to be made on the basis that the contest was not fair.
The other difference is in the rules of evidence; the adversarial system assumes that the evidence has to be given to laymen instead of jurists this makes it stricter, though there is some flexibility often in lower tribunals or where small claims are involved. The accused in the adversarial system is not supposed to testify and is also not given a chance to check the government’s trial. Contrarily, in the inquisitional system, the defendant is allowed before testifying. The inquisitorial system doesn’t shield the accused like the adversarial system, although defendants are not assumed guilty until proven otherwise. The inquisitional system doesn’t engage “arbitrary rules of evidence”, that is, prosecutors also don’t win convictions for political gains like their counterparts.
Italy is a parliamentary, democratic and multiparty nation. It has a president and a prime minister and its government is composed of the executive, legislature and judiciary arms. Judicially is the subject of discussion in this essay, in concern to the mafia Italy’s biggest organized crime group whose origin is the Sicily island. The group has been Italy’s biggest problem for centuries.
The mafia is an underground society that developed in ancient Italy as a result of Italy’s invasion by other states. These groups had a common code of operation. It emerged as the most famous form of organized crime in Italy, which developed initially as groups of families against the invaders and exploiters of Italy. Sicily being an island was in a very strategic position for invasion by other states. However, in the 19th century the European system collapsed and the island went into total anarchy.
Landowners found their way to leadership known as ‘capos’, in which they exploited farmers and exercised their power violently while the victims just suffered in silence. This lead to the beginning of the mafia whose, activities then were based around the booming export industry of citrus. The market was very vulnerable to extortion and this group took advantage. It forced landowners to employ them hence get a good chance to exploit them. The group turned to criminal acts such as robbery, kidnapping, intimidating, witnesses, drugs and arms trafficking, violence, radioactive materials peddling and, loan sharking, banditry and murder, which were common activities. The island later developed into a global hub for drug trafficking even up to date.
However, there is no evidence to show that there was some form of hierarchical organization with the mafia, until the 18th century when they adopted a common structure of authority. Only men were allowed as members, although nowadays women are legible into the clique. The members are known as Mafioso and there are rituals for initiation which characterize the Sicilian’s traditions, Catholic practices, military and religious orders. They also have Ten Commandments and more so a code of silence that prevents betrayal to the authorities otherwise the punishment is death for the person and the relatives. There are six known groups of the Mafia; Sicilians, Naples, Calabria Camorra, Stida and Sacra.
The Sicilian mafia is the oldest mafia group and its history goes back to the 19th century. This group uses the term ‘cosa nostra’ to refer to the members. They have a code of honor and have a hierarchical form of authority. This group is the most known to the world because of its spread to the united states It is also famous for assassinating high profile people like politicians, judges and the police.
The Naples mafia originated in the 19th century when it formed a prison gang from which inmates were released and were used to run the group’s enterprises in Naples They recently held a policeman hostage for he was trying to arrest one of their leaders. They are known for crimes such as cigarette and drug dealing, and counterfeit deals.
The Calabria group is also called the ‘ndrangheta’ they also came up in the 19th century when some Sicilians were evicted from Sicily and they settled in Calabria. Currently the Calabria Mafia are almost 6000 and they maintain strong links since they are blood and marriage kins. Another group is the Puglia mafia also referred to as the Sacra Corona Unita’, implying sanctified unified people. They originated from a prison gang and settled in Puglia region where they made a livelihood by collecting landing right money from other mafia gangs.
The Mafia entered the building trades slowly and bought their way in government; they meddled in politics and bullied voters to support their candidate. They had their people in government to escape prosecution. The Sicilian mafia was aggressive, it assaulted and assassinated government officials who harassed them and had influence with lawyers, financiers and professionals. The mafia is invisible because not much of its existence can be easily seen but it still survives from century to the next This is because of the Sicilian social factors like unemployment lack of competent law enforcement authorities, the secretiveness of the, people, and also citizens tend to believe in the organization than the government. The lawyers who make laws in parliament used to be in the mafia hence makes laws favoring the group. The mafia is still strong it has even spread to other countries like the United States. In Italy it controls the economy of the nation from banking, hotels, and industries to transport.
It is Italy’s biggest enterprise until now it engages in illegal activities and uses that revenue to start legal businesses the four main groups of the mafia together have got a company with sales turnover of 130 billion Euros and profits of about 70 billion Euros. Its existence in this century has been achieved due to the corrupt nature of the Italian government and the world community at large.
Salvatore Riina was a very powerful Mafioso and a leader of the Sicilian mafia, he was also known as ‘the beast’ because he was very violent, fearless and he had killed forty people and ordered the murder of hundreds of others. In the 1980’s he led his group to war against their fellow Mafioso this led to the death of many and the killing of two prosecutors like Carlo Alberto who was anti-mafia. This caused public mayhem and there was a major crackdown of the mafia and many of them were arrested including Riina who later escaped and became a fugitive.
The operations of the mafia have been underestimated by the world despite all the criminal activities this group has done, and it was only in 1982 that being a member was pronounced a crime by itself because of complaints made by Communist politician Piola Torre who was later killed for that. This led the Sicilian magistrates to intervene and they launched the first trial on history for the mafia. Among the 474 accused, 360 were found guilty.
The trial known as the Maxi trial took place in a bunker that was specifically designed for that. After proper planning it started in 1986 and the presiding judge was Alfonso Giordano and two other assistants to takeover in case something happened to him. It was a tiring trial because some of the defendants were rude, others pretended to be insane during trial and others did not talk at all. Tomasso Buscetta, a Mafioso who had been arrested in Brazil, decided to confess for he had nothing to lose since he had lost relatives and fellow Mafioso members and found it the only means avenge for them.
As usual, there is always controversy to such matters and in this case, some people said that the defendants were being framed by the judges. The pope argued that the trial did not make any sense since there were more abortions taking place than the number of people the mafia murdered forgetting that those were other crimes that the group engaged in. The Sicilian writer Leonardo said that “There is nothing better for getting ahead in the magistrates than taking part in mafia trials.” Though, other people said the information given by the defendants could be wrong because they were criminals hence would lie to suit their needs.
The trial ended after two years and 306 defendants were convicted, 114 were acquitted. Some of those acquitted were murdered by the mafia immediately while some of those convicted sought appeal and were later acquitted by the new judge in charge, Corrado Carnvella, as he was paid by the mafias. Magistrates, Falcone and Borsellino, took over the case in 1992 and turned many appeals down and reversed those that had been passed by the corrupt judge. Due to this, the mafia decided to revenge under the leadership of Riina by assassinating Falcone’s wife. Later, the two judges were killed in bomb attacks, which led to anarchy in Italy. A crackdown of the mafia was done and Riina was captured. He claimed to have never heard of the mafia before nor knew he was the most wanted person in Italy for many years. This weakened the group to a great extent. Although, it is impossible to determine whether the trial was a success, at least it weakened the mafia if not destroying it completely.
In conclusion, the inquisitorial system’s major feature is that the magistrates investigated both sides involved and the proceedings are written down with no plea of bargain system. While in the adversarial system there was the plea of the bargain, the judge listens to the facts presented in court by the advocates representing both parties and the final decision is given by the jury after discussion. The inquisitorial system is focused on the public interest than the individual person as it is in the other system. Both judicial systems are used in the world and achieve similar results using different means so again it ends up being a matter of national prestige. It is recognized that the mafia is an organization that will take Italy a lot of time to destroy, but at least a step was taken with the maxi trial in which the adversarial system was used to get evidence. The nation should also have reforms on their government because it has provided good conditions for the mafia to flourish.
Bibliography
Axelrad, Lee & Kagan, Robert, Regulatory encounters: multinational corporations and American adversarial (2000)
Carl, Sifakis, The Mafia encyclopedia (2nd ed, 2004)
Elliott, Quinn, Smith and Keenan’s English Law (16th ed, 2000)
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe, European judicial systems: edition 2008 (data 2006): efficiency and quality of justice (2008)
Fairhurst, John, American Mafia: A History of Its Rise to Power (1989)
Hanson, Sharron, Legal Method & Reasoning (2003)
Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law: The judicial system (1922)
John, Sharron, Criminal Law (8th ed, 2010)
Kagan, Robert, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (2001)
Kelly, Robert, Organized crime: a global perspective (1986)
Koppen, Van & Penrod, Steven, Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (2003)
Paoli, Letizia, Mafia brotherhoods: organized crime, Italian style, (2003)
Patrick, Ryan, Contemporary World issues (1995)
Reppetto,Bruno, Italian Foundation Academy (Edition reprint, 1989)
Stephen, Haydock, Without the Punches: Resolving Disputes Without Litigation (1991)
Stephan, Landsman, Readings on Adversarial Justice: The American Approach to Adjudication (1988)
Stephan, Landsman, The Adversary System: A Description and Defense (1984)
Spann, Girardeau, Race Against the Court (1994)
Valparaiso University law Review 27, Essay: The State of the Adversary system (1993)
Walter, Olson, Litigation explosion (1991)
Walker, Samuel & Delone, Miriam, The Color of Justice (1995)
Wild, Weinstein, Law of the European Union (7th ed, 2010)
How is policy made and implemented in criminal justice?
Peak (2011) provides a very detailed explanation of policymaking in criminal justice. It is apparent that the specifics of the process will differ depending on a particular case: the object of the policy, the people involved, time and resources available, and the approach to policy-making are going to affect the finalized policy. However, several specific features can be pointed out. First of all, the justice system policy-making must be informed: it should be based on knowledge and evidence, and policy-makers are expected to investigate the object of the policy and the possible solutions.
Secondly, it would be best to make the investigation comprehensive: policy-makers need to take into account the varied aspects that affect the object of the policy, which allows them to be prepared for various eventualities. Thirdly, the implementation of the policy is most often concerned with change. Therefore, all the change management elements (gaining support, overcoming resistance, providing the means and motivation for the change) apply to the policy-making process at the stages of planning and implementation.
Finally, policy-making is, unfortunately, constrained: limited resources are dedicated to the processes of planning and implementing, and limited time is available for policy-makers. Also, often the solution possibilities are also subjected to similar constraints. As a result, all the principles that are mentioned above can be compromised, but, as pointed out by Peak (2011), the literature on justice system policy-making proceeds to praise them.
Also, Peak (2011) insists that the constant change in policies has become a norm for criminal justice, which implies that new policies are implemented, assessed, and reviewed simultaneously and continuously, which makes them flexible and adaptable. These two qualities are admittedly very important for the modern, rapidly changing world.
What is meant by a slippery slope, and how can it lead to further problems in the administration of a criminal justice agency?
A slippery slope is typically used to describe an action (decision) that might (or is expected to) give way to uncontrollable and most likely harmful developments. It is apparent that the prediction and prevention of such activities are of primary importance for politics and the justice system. An example is a case described by Connolly (2012), in which the Supreme Court created a precedent of proclaiming the “advice regarding the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea is the type of information to which a defendant is entitled under the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel” (p. 746).
The author analyzes the probable consequences for the justice system, indicates that the number of claims of ineffective assistance is likely to soar, and makes suggestions for attorneys’ future practice (for instance, in requesting the assistance of immigration specialists). It is noteworthy that the author does not criticize the Court’s decision; in fact, Connolly (2012) believes that it is likely to improve immigration issues awareness (p. 782). Rather, he attempts to predict possible complications and find the means of avoiding or minimizing them. Also, the case explains that the reevaluation of the Constitution and its Amendments is a very difficult and dangerous activity, which invites slippery slope possibilities. This case study is an example of using the slippery slope notion correctly.
However, a slippery slope idea can degenerate into a fallacy. It happens, for instance, during debates on same-sex marriage, the opponents of which may insist that such a development will lead to uncontrollable and harmful relational chaos, including the flourishing of pedophilia and bestiality, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of monogamous heterosexual marriage (Sheff, 2011, p. 494).
As pointed out by Sheff (2011), a society with increased equality is unlikely to prohibit any non-harmful human inclination (like heterosexuality) but is likely to exclude the inclinations that are patently harmful and disrespectful of human rights (like pedophilia). Therefore, Sheff (2011) states, the people who use the slippery slope as a fallacy exhibit the fear of the change rather than its possible negative outcomes (p. 513). Such an example demonstrates the importance of the proper use of the slippery slope notion.
What is the personal loyalty syndrome, and how can it be problematic in the criminal justice workplace?
When describing the personal loyalty syndrome, Peak (2011) refers to the work by Souryal and Diamond (2001) that analyzes and describes the phenomenon in detail. Basically, the syndrome is concerned with justice system workers feeling obliged to remain loyal to their superiors even in case the latter prove to be unworthy. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with respecting a superior, but personal loyalty syndrome is mostly concerned with unhealthy, undeserved loyalty, which typically results in negative outcomes.
The reason for this kind of loyalty consists of the dependence on one’s superiors, which is common for various spheres of human activities, including the criminal justice system. While, as Souryal and Diamond (2001) state, there are no explicit rules that command personal loyalty, there are implicit and unspoken ones. They presuppose that a loyal officer is more likely to receive help and not encounter obstacles (especially deliberate ones) while doing his or her job.
The lack of loyalty can be punished in varied ways to the point of being fired. It is also apparent that if a superior demands personal loyalty in such a way, he or she is most likely to be unworthy of it and abuse it. This fact explains the choice of the term: “personal loyalty syndrome” is illogical, unhealthy, and harmful. The natural outcome consists of breaches of rules, policies, and even the law, which prevents the justice system from performing its function and fosters misconduct. Souryal and Diamond (2001) suggest that the solution to the issue consists in the development of higher levels of loyalty, for example, the institutional one (with respect to one’s institution or agency) and the integrated one, which describes the loyalty towards the profession and its values.
What are the major federal legislative acts governing public-sector employment?
According to the Department of Labor (n.d.), the following documents are currently of importance for public organization employment. The Fair Labor Standards Act is the legislation that defines the wages (especially the federal minimum wage), payments meant for working overtime, and some other aspects. For example, it also forbids the exploitation of child labor and determines the cases in which people under 16 can or cannot be employed depending on the level of danger at the workplace. It is meant for public and private organizations alike, but there are some exceptions: the Act does not cover all employees.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act has also produced programs that cover the public sector. It is concerned with workplace safety and health standards that are workplace-specific in most cases, but employees are typically guaranteed the right to be not exposed to some recognized hazards. Apart from that, there exist compensation acts for public and private employees, which vary for particular cases and occupations, and some more specific acts like the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which permits the use of polygraph tests on employees only in special situations. Also, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act is worth mentioning: it governs labor unions’ activities.
It is apparent that the majority of Acts covers public and private employment sectors. Still, as pointed out by Peak (2011), the development of employment rights differed for the public and the private sectors, and even nowadays, there are some differences between the two. For example, the bargaining rights of public employees do not only differ from those of the private sector in being more “clouded” and unclear; they are also quite diverse in different states (Antonellis, 2012, p. 36). It is apparent. Therefore, that state legislation also affects the employment of public-sector workers.
References
Antonellis, P. (2012). Labor relations for the fire service. Tulsa, Okla.: PennWell.
Connolly, C. A. (2011). Sliding Down the Slippery Slope of the Sixth Amendment: Arguments for Interpreting Padilla v. Kentucky Narrowly and Limiting the Burden It Places on the Criminal Justice System. Brooklyn Law Review, 77, 745-782. Web.
Briefly discuss the three main challenges to the administration of criminal justice agencies: discipline, liability, and labor relations
The three challenges of a criminal justice agency administration (discipline, liability, and labor relations) appear to be interrelated. The liability within the system of criminal justice is always a challenge. In general, the cases of police brutality (or perceived police brutality) are typically controversial, and the guilty party is not always easy to find. An example is the death of Eric Garner, which was caused by an officer when he did not release the man who was claiming to be unable to breathe (Susman & Haller, 2015).
The public was outraged by the case, which is understandable, especially since Garner was unarmed, but the officers’ community felt unprotected and unsupported as well, which is similarly understandable given the specifics of their job. Similarly, controversial is the case of corrections workers who are responsible for the people in their custody and can be sued if, for example, an inmate commits suicide (Peak, 2011).
As pointed out by Peak (2011), corrections workers were the last to form a professional union, which only proves the need for the protection of their negotiated rights. As a result, a criminal justice agency administration is torn between the need to protect the people from their employees’ misconduct and uphold the reputation of the institution and, at the same time, to protect the employees, who carry out their duties in most unfavorable circumstances, from unjust accusations.
However, it is apparent that one of the best ways to ensure employee protection from the cases of misplaced liability consists of providing them with related rules and guidelines. In other words, the primary tool of discipline maintenance is the documents from official policies on various aspects of conduct to recommendations and codes of ethics. In case the employees are provided with clear rules and the rules are consistently enforced through the various tools mentioned by Peak (2011), it is e easier to ensure their protection from the cases of false accusation.
Similarly, the same activities are directly connected to the improved protection of the population from the justice system employees’ misconduct. In the end, the reputation of the agency and the justice system as such depends on the maintenance of discipline. Thus, it can be concluded that the three challenges of a criminal justice agency administration are indeed interrelated and interconnected, which means that the resolution of issues in one of these fields is likely to improve the situation with the two others.
Discuss how state and federal legislation and case law have shaped the way the criminal justice system has operated and changed over the past several decades. Have the rights of the accused increased or decreased? Provide examples to support your position
The criminal justice system is naturally dependent on the changes in legislation. In the US, there exists a combination of federal and state laws, which director, as Stojkovic, Kalinich, and Klofas (2011) put it, frame the criminal justice system. Also, the case law, which is the law based on precedents, affects the legislation and the justice system, as, for example, the case of Whren v. the United States justified pretextual stops in 1996 (Greenhouse, 1996).
The impacts of the changes appear to be quite diverse. While it is apparent that the legislative developments are guided by the aim of improving security, they often need to balance out unintended consequences, which can be very costly for the accused. In my opinion, the rights of the accused are changing in diverse ways, and the varied legislation that has been developed in the past 30 years has different intentional and unintentional consequences. For instance, invasive experimentation in prisons was banned, even though the suggestions about removing the restrictions keep being voiced (Urbina, 2006).
The improbability of informed and non-dubious consent from the inmates justifies the restrictions. However, the accused are apparently not considered to be pressured when plea bargaining is concerned, even though the latter is quite often based on literally “trading” one’s rights and liberties. At the same time, as pointed out by Stojkovic et al. (2011), the development of technology and the related legislation for its use raises the chances of justice being served, for example, via DNA evidence, which can be used to balance out the possibility of confessions made under pressure (p. 58). However, the collection of DNA from the accused can be considered a violation of rights as well. In other words, the current legislation is forced to seek the balance between security and liberty.
The mentioned situations are only some of the examples of the way relatively recent developments in the justice system and legislation affect the accused. However, the justice system also indirectly affects the lives of the families of the accused, which is hardly beneficial for the accused as well. As was pointed out by Stojkovic et al. (2011), the number of incarcerated soared about 20-30 years ago (p. 55), which implies that the number of the collateral victims must have also grown significantly.
Finally, the law and the justice system affect the life of the whole population. While it is apparent that the legislators attempt to balance out security and freedom in the majority of cases (as in the example of pretextual stops and the danger of racial profiling), some of the initiatives are extremely suspicious (for example, the supposedly “due” hardship that American women in some states have to go through to have an abortion). Since the accused are a part of the population, they are affected by these developments as well. To sum up, the effects of the changes in the legislation and justice systems are not one-dimensional, and while nowadays we work towards the expansion and protection of the rights of the accused and non-accused population of the US, the outcomes, both intended and unintended, can be positive and negative.
It is possible to distinguish several criminal justice theories that are closely related to organizational management; for example, one can speak about the work of such people as Orlando Wilson, August Vollmer, Max Weber, and Mary Belle Harris. Their ideas can throw light on the way in which criminal justice system evolved with time passing. Moreover, the study of these theories can demonstrate some of the principles that govern the work of law-enforcement agencies. These are the main questions that should be examined more closely.
At first, it is possible to discuss the ideas advanced by August Vollmer. This theorist emphasized the importance of leadership. In his opinion, leadership was particularly important at the time a police officer had to oppose the decisions that contradicted legal rules or ethical principles. Moreover, this person focused on independent decision-making of police officers. Additionally, he focused on the organization of police work.
For example, he identified the procedures that should be involved in criminal investigations (Forst & Manning, 1999, p. 9). August Vollmer also recognized the importance of evaluation. In his opinion, the assessment has to be based on such indicators as clearance statistics and the number of arrests within a certain period (Forst & Manning, 1999, p. 9). Another peculiarity of his model was the increased emphasis on the staffing of police departments.
For example, he wanted to recruit people who were educated in college. It should be noted that this person attached much importance to the training of law-enforcement officers. In particular, he launched a criminal justice program that could help people better understand the peculiarities of police work.
Additionally, August Vollmer paid much attention to the allocation of financial resources and responsibilities. In his opinion, local departments should have an opportunity to introduce new practices. Finally, in his opinion, the employees of law-enforcement agencies had to report their activities consistently. These are the main details that can be distinguished.
Additionally, one can examine the theory developed by Orlando Wilson. He believed that leadership had been a key to fighting corruption in various police departments. This is why he focused on the independent initiatives of police officers. Orlando Wilson argued that the work of criminal justice could be made more effective, if the work of law-enforcement agencies had been organized properly.
In many cases, he stressed the need for improving record keeping in organizations (Brunsdale, 2010, p. 234). Moreover, in his view, the employees of law-enforcement agencies should not avoid taking decisions because this behavior usually impaired the work of criminal justice agencies. Apart from that, he focused on the assessment of performance. However, he paid attention to the study of quantitative indicators such as the rate of absenteeism or clearance statistics.
Apart from that, Orlando Wilson attached much importance to the educational background of police workers. For example, while recruiting candidates, he preferred candidates with a college degree. Orlando Wilson believed that police officers had to undergo standardized training (Brunsdale, 2010, p. 234). Moreover, they should continuously work on the development of their skills.
Additionally, he believed that it has been necessary for police departments to maintain records of their activities. In his opinion, a leader should allocate duties to their subordinates since this approach is critical for the efficiency of law-enforcement agencies. This requirement is necessary for conducting proper criminal investigations.
Moreover, it is important to discuss the ideas of Mary Belle Harris. This person is primarily known for her work in women’s prisons. To a great extent, she transformed the work of these institutions. In her daily practices, she laid stress on leadership which included such aspects as willingness to take steps that do not conform to the major trends, established in the community.
In particular, she was ready to take innovative decisions, even though such decisions could contradict the opinions of the majority (Banks, 2003, p. 149). For instance, she wanted female prisoners to be treated with respect (Banks, 2003, p. 149). In turn, she wanted to recruit the employees who could display empathy to inmates. This is one of the criteria according to which she evaluated their performance.
This is why she focused on such a process as staffing; in particular, she wanted to hire candidates who understood the goal of the criminal justice system. This is one of the aspects that can be distinguished. Furthermore, in her opinion, a person had to undergo specific training in order to work efficiently in women’s prisons (Banks, 2003, p. 149).
Moreover, Mary Belle Harris argued that every female inmate required individualized treatment. Therefore, leaders should efficiently allocate duties to their subordinates. Moreover, they should encourage workers to take independent decisions. Finally, she required employees to report the specific steps that they took in order to assist a prisoner. This requirement is critical for the accountability of the criminal justice system.
Finally, it is important to speak about the theory introduced by Max Weber who examined the functioning of bureaucracies and organizations. In his view, leadership in institutions should be based on the expertise and training of officials. Furthermore, these professionals should be able to identify procedures that facilitate the efficient work of institutions. In addition to that, a person should take decisions that are strictly related to his/her area of expertise.
Moreover, they need to evaluate the performance of workers according to objective criteria that can be understood by subordinates. Apart from that, the staffing processes should be based on the technical qualifications of a candidate. The organization should also provide opportunities for professional development. To some degree, this goal can be achieved with the help of training.
Although, Weber did not object to centralized decision-making, he also recognized the necessity for proper allocation of duties and responsibilities (Robbins & Judge, 2013). In some case, it is necessary to enable the managers of local departments to make an independent use of resources. In turn, every important step should be reported by the employees. These are the main aspects that should not be overlooked.
The name of the theorist
Timeline
Max Weber
1864- 1920
Mary Belle Harris
1874–1957
August Vollmer
1876 -1955
Orlando Winfield Wilson
1900 – 1972
Conclusions
On the whole, this discussion indicates that various theorists have attempted to discover the methods of improving criminal justice system. Although, they emphasized the need for standardized training; yet, they also encouraged the independent initiatives of employees. Moreover, different researchers and practitioners paid attention to the development of procedures that could improve the efficiency of different procedures. Finally, they recognized the importance of proper reporting. These are the main details that can be singled out.
Reference List
Banks, C. (2003). Women in Prison: A Reference Handbook. New York, NY: ABC-CLIO.
Brunsdale, M. (2010). Icons of Mystery and Crime Detection: From Sleuths to Superheroes. New York, NY: ABC-CLIO.
Forst, B. & Manning, P. (1999). The Privatization of Policing: Two Views. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.
Change and transformation in the world today are becoming inevitable. Consequently, for organizations to succeed in this environment, they have to adapt to these changes (Olson, 2001). Adapting to change involves aligning the structures and management of human capital among other things.
This paper will explore the organizational behavior concepts related to standard managerial practices aimed at achieving effective and efficient operations within the criminal justice settings. It is imperative to understand the organizational behavior patterns, as well as the management practices to adequately analyze this concept.
Different organizations have different managerial practices. However, the most common concept of efficient management results is remarkable productivity and profit returns due to better performance. The criminal justice system setup is aimed at achieving low crime rate, upholding justice, rehabilitating law breakers and making them good citizens of the community.
The key concepts involved in the organizational behavior are channeled towards attaining efficiency in management practices. In the criminal justice setup, the managers are to possess both technical and interpersonal skills, because the managers are responsible for managing the organization’s finances, resources, information and personnel. To empower the employees, they need resources such as support programs, trainings, adequate provisions and equipment.
Organizational behavior inspects on the impact that structures, individuals and groups have on how the personnel in an organization behave. The employees of an organization are normally diverse and this plays a key role in attaining maximum success.
Therefore, the management is to exploit this concept in their favor in order to outshine their competitors. The major organizational behavior concepts discussed in this paper include “change agent”, “complex systems”, “linear and systemic thinking”, “differentiation” and “whole” (Reichel, 2008).
To begin with, the managers should recognize that they are a change agent by default, meaning that everything they do, may it be personal or professional, has a ripple effect on everyone around them. In the criminal justice context, any wrong action can adversely affect the majority. Other behavioral concepts, associated with standard managerial practices include linear and systemic thinking. The systems are complex and need to work together as a whole to maximize the output (Ollhoff, 2001).
This acknowledges that alteration of any element of the system might adversely affect the system as a whole. As such a holistic approach to managerial practices is important to the success of the organization. The criminal justice system includes defense attorneys, policemen, prosecutors, jails, parole and courts. All these systems make up the criminal justice organization.
Differentiation is another behavioral concept that involves separation from any emotional attachment in a situation. This creates a situation whereby one’s performance and decision making are not disrupted by emotions. Emotions can make the system counterproductive. In a criminal justice setting, this concept promotes justice and fairness. The law enforcers ought to use facts as a basis for their decision making.
In conclusion, the organizational behavior concepts have a great impact on the staff’s performance, motivation, standards and values. Therefore, these concepts when applied in the day-day operation in the criminal justice setup lead to remarkable results.
References
Ollhoff, J. & Walcheski, M. (2001). Stepping in wholes: Introduction to complex systems. Eden Prairie, MN: Sparrow Media Group.
Olson, E. & Eoyang, G. (2001). Facilitating organization change; Lessons from complexity science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Reichel, P. (2008). Comparative criminal justice systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.