Category: Criminal Justice

The arrest of an individual for an offense often marks the end of the investigative police work. For a defendant, it is also the gateway to the criminal justice system door (Lab et al., 2007).

Step 1: The arrest

When police have reasonable grounds to believe that William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt committed the robbery, they have the power, not the obligation, to put them under arrest. This means they have the right to deprive the offenders of their freedom, at least temporarily. When the police intend to ask that charges be filed against a person under arrest, they can be given summons to the court before being released. The meeting may take different forms (Almer & Goeschl, 2011).

In other circumstances, both William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt may be released without formality and later, if charges are filed, the court might send a notice by mail. The offense, date and place of convening the order should be indicated. At that time, William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt must appear in court for the first stage of the prosecution.

The police may have the power to detain William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt placed under arrest when they are unable to complete preliminary investigation. It is similar to when the police fear that the individuals do not appear in court upon convening because they may destroy evidence or commit further offenses if released. The fear of reprisals against victims or witnesses is also a reason why William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt can be detained.

Finally, robbery with violence is so serious that it is not justifiable to give freedom to the suspects (William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt). If the police decide to keep William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt in custody, they must absolutely bring them before a judge no later than 24 hours after the arrest. Failure to meet this deadline may result in a stay of proceedings. This means that the charges against the accused cannot be continued.

Step 2: The authorization of the complaint, the decision to lay charges

When police believe have evidence that William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt have committed the robbery with violence offense following an investigation, the facts and evidence should be transmitted to the regional office of prosecutors in criminal prosecution. It is not the work of the police to decide whether legal proceedings should be initiated. Such as decision belongs to prosecutors in criminal and penal prosecutions (Lab et al., 2007). in real sense, Mr. Milton Brown and the police who arrested the offenders are not obliged to proceed with the case to the courtroom.

The latter can only happen if the nature of the case is private. The victim (Milton Brown) should be seen almost exclusively as a witness to the offense. Rather, it is the Director of Criminal and Penal prosecution who handles criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state. However, the number of cases is substantial. For example, it delegates certain powers to criminal attorneys and criminal lawyers for the sake of expediting the criminal justice process (Almer & Goeschl, 2011).

Step 3: The decision of the magistrate

Once the prosecutor decides the robbery with violence offenses disclosed by the evidence, it has to make major pre-trail decisions. The Winston police department 911 officers who were responsible for the case should then take this document and swear that every evidence contained in it is truthful. The police officer in charge should then sign the document.

If the accusations contained in the charges sheet are incredible, it is the right of the magistrate to decide whether to append his or her signature. The magistrate has the power to require hearing or seeing the evidence before making a decision. The hearing is called pre-investigation and is done in private. However, it is rarely used. Once the magistrate signed the information, William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt are formally charged.

Step 4: Appearance

The criminal justice process begins with the appearance stage. It is during the appearance stage that William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt will be presented for the first time before a judge. They are supposed to plead guilty or not guilty to each of the offenses mentioned in the prosecution sheet.

Denunciation

All the offences or crimes committed by the couple should be communicate to them by the court during the appearance phase. Hence, the clerk should read the information clearly. Denunciation is the documents prepared as a substitute and basis for any criminal prosecution. It describes the offense charged in a separate count.

It is possible for the defense to waive the reading of the information to expedite the stage for the appearance. Therefore, it is the role of the counsel for the accused to properly inform their client of the charges they are facing. Although William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt have the right to defend themselves, they can seek the legal services of an attorney since the case at hand is complicated.

Step 5: Registration advocacy

After learning of the charges against them, William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt must notify the court if they choose to plead guilty or not guilty to all the counts. An appropriate penalty can be administered to the offenders only if they opt to agree to the accusations. The penalty may be imposed on the spot or later.

The accused persons may also choose to plead not guilty if they feel that they are innocent of the cases against them. In addition, they can benefit from a period of reflection before they can plead guilty or not guilty (Benson, 2014).It is important to note that at any time before judgment, William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt may plead not guilty and later change their minds and plead guilty to the robbery with violence charges.

Step 6: Crime and summary offenses

According to the alleged offense, there are several ways to prosecute William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt. These include the pursuit by impeachment (for crime) and summary conviction (for summary offenses). The difference between the two processes is subtle although relevant. For summary offenses, the procedure is simpler, faster and less severe than sentences for criminal acts.

Hybrid offenses

William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt were charged with two types of felonies namely assault and robbery with violence. The prosecution should categorize the two felonies as hybrid offenses. Regarding robbery with violence crime, three tracking modes exist depending on the offense and the choice of the accused. A serious offence like robbery with violence should be prosecuted in a higher level of the judicial system. However, there are a number of less serious cases that can be undertaken in the absence of special judicial panels.

Step 7: The investigation of bail

This step should take place only if William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt are detained or remanded by the court. Custody should not be confused with detention imposed as punishment after conviction.

The privilege of continuing

When the accused detainees (William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt) appear in court after arrest, the prosecution may choose to oppose their release pending trial or be released under conditions. Both of the accused persons can be investigated further if the prosecuting panel is adamant to bail them out.

The grounds for the detention of an accused

The purpose of a survey of bail is to determine whether William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt should remain in jail pending the outcome of proceedings, which may take several months. According to the prevailing pieces of legislations, an individual can only be detained if there is sufficient evidence to do so. If the latter does not apply, then the accused persons should be acquitted. The action thus has the burden of convincing the judge by the available evidence which is the necessity of detention of the accused. An accused may be detained based on a clear decision by the presiding judge. As a matter of fact:

• There are no legal proceedings that can continue to take place if the two suspects are acquitted. There is no evidence that Bertha Bloutt and William Bloutt have been charged with criminal offense in the past.
• If Bertha Bloutt and William Bloutt are deemed to be dangerous, then the prosecution panel may be compelled to detain the accused pending further hearing.
• The detention of William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt is necessary because if they are set free, the reputation of the courts may be at stake.

The process of investigating the bail

In order to prove the grounds for detention, the attorney for criminal prosecution should testify before the judge and police investigator assigned to the case or the victim of the offense (Milton Brown). These witnesses are supposed to recount the events leading to the prosecution of William Bloutt and Bertha Bloutt. They may also educate the judge about the general behavior of the accused, their criminal records or bring any other relevant information. The witness statement given by Mr. Milton Brown and reports gathered by the police should be used by the prosecution panel in the trial process. The accused persons have the right to ask questions regarding evidence gathered against them.

Step 8: Disclosure and negotiation

Between the trail and appearance durations, a close working relationship is established between the prosecution panel and the defense unit. Disclosure refers to communication of the evidence. All the prosecution materials should be availed to the accused individuals as part and parcel of their basic legal rights. A case in point is the witness statement. All the information contained in such a statement should be made open to the entire court proceedings (Benson, 2014).

Step 9: The judge’s decision

After hearing the evidence, the presiding judge should decide that Bertha Bloutt and William Bloutt are guilty of robbery with violence owing to the available evidence.

Conclusion

The weakest link in the criminal justice system is gathering of evidence because a crime might be committed without leaving any trace. However, the available penal codes for offenders who have been found guilty is the strongest link of the criminal justice process.

References

Almer, C. & Goeschl, T. (2011). The political economy of the environmental criminal justice system: A production function approach. Public Choice, 148(3-4), 611- 630.

Benson, B. L. (2014). Let’s focus on victim justice, not criminal justice. The Independent Review, 19(2), 209-238.

Lab, S.P. & Williams, S.R., Holcomb, J.E., Burek, M.W., King, W.R. & Buerger, M.E. (2007). Criminal Justice: The Essentials (3^rd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

One of the standard facets of criminal justice researches is the collection of field data. While collecting the data there are some standard factors to be considered. Each project will be having some unique factors that determine how the field run would occur. One of the major aspects that have to be considered while going for data collection is that, the selection of the data collection team. Notifications, as well as travel arrangements, has to be made. While organizing the team the following things have to be considered. They are considered skills needed, time frames, and transportation issues. All the members of the team should be able to work as a team and their skills should be admired in nature. Freedom should be given to staff members about the choice of the team they would like to work with. Moreover, the assignment of a person with responsibilities of a group is compulsory; along with him the appointment of a backup leader will be most appropriate to meet contingency situations if necessary.

Another important aspect to be considered is planning well in advance. The data collection team should be a well-trained team. Before going for field trips, it is important to plan the activities. This would help in collecting the data accurately and efficiently. Regular meetings and briefings with supervisors should be given priority.

While going for field research, the following points are worth to note, they are, selecting the data collecting instruments for each subject, list of sites, subjects along with their contact information, geographical maps aiding the study of each site along with meeting places, and hotels, hotel reservations, and contact information.

The leader that is selected for the investigating group should be having more experience than his team members. The leader should be responsible for holding meetings regularly for clearing doubts as well as making reviews and giving directions. During the orientation meetings, the leader should be supplied with samples of completed works so that they could examine these and suggest clarifications at the earliest. Critical and problematic locations should be noted and handed over to the most experienced members.

It is an ideal practice to conduct a pre-data run briefing during the first week of collecting the data. All persons responsible for data collection should attend the meeting. Useful and valuable demonstrations can be made during such meetings. During these meetings, it should be clearly noted that all the data collecting instruments should be clearly explained. Moreover, all the coding and other related items should also be explained. There should be an open-minded approach to questions.

Always reiterate the importance of providing the answer to each and every item. Every missing data should be noted and proper explanation should be sought. The staff members should be compelled to review each competed work immediately. It is also appropriate to remind everyone to keep a record of receipts as well as mileage documents. The policies on travel and reimbursement should be reiterated.

When going for criminal justice research, the following items should be compulsorily included so that data collection becomes foolproof and efficient. They are extra batteries and films, extra pens, extra instruments like surveys, etc, clipboards and binders, telephone books and maps, lists of contacts, information about hotels, lists of subjects, driving instructions, and last but not the least GPS units.

Checking the status of research teams engaged in the collection of criminal justice researches is also very important during the course of research. It is also necessary to collect the completed instruments and check for completeness as early as possible.

What is UCR?

The uniform crime reporting program, better known as a UCR was conceived in the year 1929 by the international association of police chiefs in order to meet the necessity of reliable, uniform crime statistics for the country as well as for the whole world. During the 1930s the FBI was entrusted with the task of collection, publishing, and archiving of criminal statistics. Nowadays there are many statistical publications like Crime in the United States, that are printed using data collected by more than 17000 law enforcement agencies engaged in the US (Uniform Crime Reports).

The data reporting in the United States is done by the FBI annually. The data is collected and compiled and reported by the uniform crime reporting program and published in the “Crime in the United States”, an annual magazine. The national index for crime increased nearly 2.1% in the year 2001. This increase was the first to be reported since 1991. However, when the trends were examined, the crime rate was down by 10.2% when compared to the data of 1997 and 17.9% down when compared with 1992 statistics.

Helping as a gauge of the level and scope of American crime knowledge, the FBI reports four major crimes. They are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. Moreover, there are three property crimes namely, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, etc.

Data released by the UCR program of the FBI reports that there is a 2.1% increase of criminal offenses in the country, this data was based on the study conducted in the year 2001. Moreover, according to the report, the violent crimes had an increase of 0.8% when compared with the previous year. However, the trend of murders across the country had a decline of 12.2%. The reports also suggested that nearly 42.3% of the murder victims had knowledge about their assailants. Nearly one-third of the female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends (U.S. Crime Index Increases).

With regard to the collection and compilation of statistics, the UCR program aims to collect the best and the most meaningful statistics related to the crime for the police administrators. The program collects the data on known crimes and also persons that are arrested by law enforcement agencies. They do not gather data on the findings of a jury, a court, coroner, or the findings of a prosecutor.

Talking about reporting offenses, the UCR program limits its reporting to eight selected crimes. These crimes are most likely to happen with adequate regularity to make available an ample foundation for evaluation.

As far as information regarding arrests is concerned, the UCR Program collects data relating to arrests on part 1 crimes as well as 21 other offenses. In a significant development, in 2004 the CJIS advisory policy board recommended and implemented the discontinuation of the use of crime index in the UCR program. The board recommended that the FBI should publish a violent and property crime index. This was because of the fact that the crime index failed to act as a true indicator of the degree of crimes in a locality.

Nonreporting about different types of crimes by the law enforcement agencies has prompted the UCR to estimate crime at metropolitan statistical areas, state levels, and national levels. When there is nonreporting of data from agencies, the UCR program staff assigns similar crime volumes based on the crime statistics of comparable areas inside a state.

Although the UCR program does not address unreported crime, another program named NCVS (national crime victimization survey) reports such crimes. The programs of the UCR and the NCVS were designed to help each other. However, the two programs use different methodologies.

Comparison of crimes between these two programs is not possible because of the difference in methodologies. These two programs examine the crimes from different perspectives.

The word classifying and scoring have different meanings in UCR programs.

Classifying means determining the proper crime category and scoring is counting the number of classified offenses (The National consortium for justice information and statistics).

In order to expand the UCR program to meet the law enforcement needs of the 21st century, the FBI and BJS formed and implemented the National incident-based reporting system. This system collects data on each and every reported crime incident. Under the UCR system, the law enforcement agencies total the number of incidents by offense type on a monthly basis and report to the FBI, whereas, under the NIBRS system, agencies will provide individual records for each crime.

The UCR program gathers offense information on part 1 crimes such as homicides, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and arson. The program supplies inadequate information regarding offenses, victims, and criminals and includes accounted arrests for 21 supplementary crime categories. Under the new system, the law establishments would supply information to the FBI on every single illegal event that occupies 46 exact offenses and also includes the eight-part 1 crimes that occur in their authority. Moreover, arrest information on the 46 offenses along with 11 small offenses is also provided under NIBRS.

The goal of the NIBRS system is to enhance the quality and quantity of criminal justice data. This system involves comprehensive data collection at the incident level on various aspects of reported criminal incidents. An important advantage of this system over UCR is that this system records and counts all offenses, not just serious offenses as done under UCR. NIBRS provides more categories of offenses than UCR. The crimes are divided into two categories namely group A which includes 22 serious crimes and group B which includes 11 lesser crimes.

The change from summary data collection to a broader framework of incident-based data collection is not totally complete. Offense statistics were received by the FBI from the NIBRS from the year 1989. In the year 2001, only 21 state coverage programs were acquiescent. The involvement of this program is rising progressively on the other hand the data is not invasive enough to make broader simplifications about crime in the United States. Moreover reduced reporting is also a big problem for the new system. On the basis of several studies conducted in this area, it was found that the new system is worth the endeavor and expenditure occupied in its full completion (Survey of Criminal Justice).

References

1. FIELD DATA COLLECTION. 2004. CENTER FOR CRIIMIINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH California State University, San Bernardino. (online). Web.
2. The National consortium for justice information and statistics. (online).
3. Survey of Criminal Justice. (online).
4. Uniform Crime Reports. FBI. (online).
5. U.S. Crime Index Increases, FBI Reports. (online). Web.

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his teammates prepared an experiment, which examined the outcome of becoming a prison guard or an inmate. The researchers conditioned human lives in order to examine the effects of human behaviors. The researchers placed the participants in a simulated prison area to find out how they respond to such an environment. The researchers developed a prison experiment plant at Stanford University.

The researchers selected the participants from a huge group of seventy volunteers (McNamara and Burns, 2009). The participants had neither any criminal records nor psychological issues. The researchers assigned the twenty-four participants to either act as prison guards or inmates. The inmates stayed in a mock prison for 24 hours daily during the study period. The researchers assigned the correctional staffs (prison guards) to work in shifts of each team group operate for eight hours. The researchers used cameras and microphones to assess the behavior of the correctional staffs and inmates.

The Stanford prison experiment lasted for six days. The result was that inmates felt anxiety and stress while the prison guards became violent and abusive. The researchers allowed the correctional staffs and inmates to socialize in any manner they needed. Such interactions were unfriendly and inhuman. According to Northern Arizona University Criminal justice Collective (2009), the prison guards behaved abusively and aggressively towards the inmates. The inmates became distressed and inactive (passive). Five inmates eventually felt acute anxiety, crying and negative severe emotions. The researchers therefore had to release the five inmates from the experiment. The Stanford prison experiment shows a substantial contribution on how the conditions pose the impacts on human behavior.

Present the significance of cultural diversity as it relates to correctional facilities using your selected case as an example.

Cultural diversity is an important factor when considering the effective management of the correctional facility. The correctional facility should employ prison guards from culturally diversified regions. The capability of managing the correctional facility depends on effective communication between the inmates and the prison guards. McNamara and Burns (2009) view that the lack of effective communication may cause violence and riots in the correctional facility.

When people do not understand the viewpoints of one another, chaos does occur. Prisoners can cause rampage riots in the correctional facility. A situation may happen that certain correctional staffs (prison guards) are authoritative and violent which prisoners may not accept. Prison guards may not be able to understand certain prisoners who came from different backgrounds such as African American origin. Cases of rampage riots and conflicts happened because the inmates and person guards do not understand each other. Correctional staffs should be reasonable and fair when handling the inmates.

Understanding how to address various challenges that inmates encountered and promoting effective communication are vital and essential priorities. Correctional workforce that comprises of cultural diversified personnel is important in managing the prison (Northern Arizona University Criminal justice Collective, 2009). Encouraging cultural diversity in programs such as working, training, and team building are important in addressing the needs of the inmates and coping with troublesome individuals. There is a need to avoid problems, which lead to misunderstandings, frustrations and stress in the correctional facility. Making cultural diversity a priority is necessary because it promotes achieving correctional facility’s objectives.

Give a brief discussion regarding discrimination and ethnic disparity and discrimination in the correctional facility. The focal point should be the arrival of inmates, the guards, and rebellion.

The legal portion serves the role of determining the kind of punishment which inmates are likely to receive. Legal factors aim to work in accordance with the rule of law (McNamara and Burns, 2009). However, prisoner guards can engage in undesired behaviors that lead to discriminatory actions. Correctional staffs may sometimes handle inmates through discrimination, prejudice and bias actions. Such kind of injustices may cause revolts and protests in the prison.

Correctional staffs can involve in discriminatory actions when handling inmates while considering their appearance, gender, religious and cultural beliefs, age, race, community relations, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. The rule of law requires that prison guards to minimize discrimination, prejudice and biases when handling inmates. Ethnic disparity occurs when the law enforcers favor some inmates who come from major social and cultural groups but discriminate against the other prisoners.

Northern Arizona University Criminal Justice Collective (2009) says that prison guards can discriminate against the inmates who come from the minority groups. Ethnic disparity and discrimination infringe the prisoners’ constitutional rights. The prison guards are the law enforcement agents who possess discretionary power, but may abuse their duties when they prejudice against certain inmates from other particular cultures. When the prison guards engage in discriminatory actions, they thus infringe the rights of the inmates. The prisoners from the minority groups such as the Hispanics and African Americans can greatly suffer in the jail.

Prison guards therefore need to understand the role of cultural diversity. Imprisoning the minority groups for three times more than the whites is an illegal action, which the court systems need to address. The Criminal justice system should offer equality to all people and avoid discrimination, prejudice and biases that take place in the correctional facility.

References

McNamara, R & Burns, R. (2009). Multiculturalism in the criminal justice system. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

Northern Arizona University Criminal justice Collective. (2009). Investigating difference: human and cultural relations in criminal justice (2^nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Crime existed since the dawn of humanity. Despite being as ancient as the first human civilization, it remained a largely understudied subject for a very long time. As the societies progressed and evolved culturally and technologically, police forces were becoming more and more efficient in catching criminals. However, they did not address the root of the problem. They did not address its causes. Only at the beginning of the 20th century the sociologists began making efforts in order to identify the reasons behind deviant behavior. Cultural Deviance theory was the end product of this effort. It combined two dominant ideas present at the time – the Social Disorganization theory and the Strain theory. For a long time, this theory was considered prevalent in criminology. Other criminologists and researchers, such as Cohen, Cloward, Matza, and Miller, constantly improved on it (Cook, 2012). However, despite offering abundant and comprehensive explanations to the origins of crime in the society, it missed a very important aspect, which greatly contributes to facilitation of deviant behavior. Stigmatizing and bias towards formerly criminal elements and other people associated with crime only deepens their deviant behavior.

Cultural Deviance Theory

Cultural Deviance theory is based upon two other theories, which are:

• Social Disorganization Theory.
• Strain Theory.

Social disorganization theory focuses on the environment and places it as the main reason for crime. Deteriorating neighborhoods, inadequate social services and social control, law-violating gangs and groups, and conflicting social values are considered to be the factors that contribute to the appearance and spread of criminal activity (Social disorganization theory, 2016). Strain theory focuses more on the conflict between personal goals and means of achieving them – it states that unequal distribution of wealth and power, frustration, and inability to reach the desired goals through legal means creates tensions, which might push certain individuals towards crime (Strain theory, 2016).

Cultural Deviance theory is built upon these two and states that the factors mentioned in both theories are the reasons for the development of criminal subcultures, which are born out of disorganization and stress. These subcultures do not share values of the society and oppose it. Thus, a lower-class culture, based on poverty and desire for wealth and good life, is responsible for generating crime in urban areas (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2012).

Although considered a predominant theory by many criminologists, it received plenty of criticism, namely from labeling theorists, for disregarding the impact of how the society views criminals and certain groups of people associated with crime.

Labeling Theory

The etiological Cultural Deviance theory was not the only line of thought that tried to explain the nature of crime. Labeling theorists state that merely examining criminals, their environment, and their characteristics is not enough. The society’s reaction to rule-breaking and crime is a very important factor that contributes to the overall deviance. The roots of this theory could be found in symbolic interactionism (Labeling theory, 2016). It states that a person or a group labeled as criminals and deviants will come to terms with themselves being such. Essentially, they become what the society expects them to be. People viewed as criminals would behave like criminals in order to fit label given to them (Labeling theory, 2016). This statement is what Labeling theory is built upon.

Numerous sociologists throughout the 20th century aided in development of this theory. Among them are Tannenbaum, Lemert, Kitsuse, Cohen, and Becker. Their opposition to Cultural Deviance theory lies in the fact that it almost completely disregards the impact of social reaction on deviant behavior.

While the theory brings up some important aspects of crime generation process, it should not be viewed as a separate entity. Instead, it should be considered an addition to Cultural deviance theory, to address the issues not covered by it. Certain theorists, such as Cohen, had a hand in developing both theories at the same time.

Gangs through the Viewpoint of Different Theories

According to Cultural Deviance theory, gangs are the product of urban lower-class culture. They are comprised mostly out of young people who are constantly exposed to the hazards and malevolent influences of the lower-class society. A gang is a form of a union, which is created for reasons of finding common ground, and for personal gain and satisfaction. Organized crime is much more effective than individual crime. In addition, being in a gang offers a modicum of power and protection. In some cases, participation in a gang could be viewed as a symbol of status. However, the three dominant versions within Cultural Deviance theory do not completely explain why groups of young people are more prone to crime. Instead, the theory assumes they are, and finds evidence to support that assumption. In so doing, it commits the same mistake the society does, which only promotes already existing labels and stereotypes.

According to the latest reports, the number of youths joining gangs in the inner cities doubled. At the same time, the number of gang leaders serving time in prison and being released after good conduct has increased. The crime rate for gang violence has risen 20% from last year. Both of these facts could be explained through the prism of Labeling theory. There is a growing stereotype that young people living in a lower-class environment are prone to crime, which makes the rest of the society treat them as potential criminals. This is especially true for young African-Americans – they are much more likely to be stopped and searched by the police for no apparent reason (Gabbidon & Greene, 2015). This kind of hostile behavior breeds hatred in return, forcing the youth to side with the gangs rather than the society that views them with prejudice and bias. Same could be said for the gang leaders who served their time in prison. The subject of rehabilitating criminals is a well-known one. Former convicts are not seen as trustworthy. They have trouble finding jobs. This hampers their ability to facilitate a normal life and find a place in the society. Hate, suspicion, and prejudice paves their way towards crime. Many are forced to return to the old ways, and form criminal gangs once more. These are the reasons why gang-related criminal activity increased so much during the last year. However, the factors covered by Cultural Deviance theory should not be overlooked. The economic crisis and societal tensions have a strong influence on crime rates related to youth.

Strategy to avoid Stereotyping in the Criminal Justice System

In order to avoid stereotyping, prejudice, and bias in our current Criminal Justice System, it must be realized that the fact that Cultural Deviance theory is not a panacea. While it covers a substantial part of the nature of criminal behavior, it overlooks several substantial factors, which are covered by Labeling theory. It is a legitimate crime causation theory, and should not be overlooked either. It should be taught along with Cultural Deviance theory in order to provide a more accurate picture of crime. In fact, both theories should not be viewed as separate entities.

The society and the police should be made aware of their own prejudice and stereotypes, and on what effect it has on crime (Marsh, 2015). Each member of the society contributes to the overall climate, bit by bit. This climate forces the outcasts of the society into accepting the roles and labels bestowed upon them, thus generating crime out of nothing. The mechanisms of symbolic interactionism are well-studied by sociology and criminology alike. In order to stop stereotyping and prejudice, the people must be conscious of them. This is possible only through spreading the knowledge and raising awareness about how detrimental labels are to our society (Marsh, 2015).

Conclusions

Humanity has gone a long way from mindlessly fighting the consequences of criminal activity, without bothering to deal with the causes, to putting effort into researching and identifying the root of the problem. However, this effort must not be stopped halfway. The current models and theories we have in place are flawed – Cultural Deviance Theory does not offer a conclusive answer, and Labeling theory cannot be viewed outside of Cultural Deviance theory since the factors mentioned there are too important to be ignored. The society must be made aware of the consequences of stigmatizing the lower classes, and that it only empowers the outcasts to promote crime and violence.

References

Cook, Sam. (2012). Subcultural Theories. Web.

Gabbidon, S.L., & Greene, H.T. (2015). Race and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Labeling theory and symbolic interaction theory. (2016). Web.

Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2012). Criminological theory. Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marsh, J. (2015). Can we reduce bias in criminal justice? Web.

Social disorganization theory. (2016). Web.

Strain theory: How social values produce deviance. (2016). Web.

Introduction

Differences between practice and research

The reasons for the difference between research information collected through practice, as opposed to information received by empirical research could be seen as follows: in the case of practitioners, they deal with situations that are unique and highly individualistic, having special characteristics, found only in such kind of practice; however, in the case of empirical research, the researchers make tremendous efforts to find areas of similarities, or commonality, in the data under review. While in the case of practice, the specialty of the study assumes significance, and special interest, in the case of practical research studies, the results with emphasis on commonality of population samples and their similarities are discussed. In fact, one of the chief areas for discussion in the case of research would be with regard to the causes and reasons for variances and how it would impinge upon the results.

Main body

In the subject under review, which is recidivism, the practice would be regarding the control and alleviation of this social malaise, wherein criminals revert to their illegal activities within few years of being freed, and need to be reincarnated repeatedly for either the same, or other crimes.

Specific learning opportunities for conceptual and technical skills

The specific learning opportunities that improve one’s conceptual and technical skills lie in the fact that the methodologies for such research would be the prison settings, where interviews with jail superintendents, wardens and other officials would increase the practical aspects of this problem, recidivism, and their professed views and recommendations on how this problem could be tackled and controlled effectively. These interviews would also throw light on the psyches and mental buildup of criminals who are habitually recidivists. The inner workings of their minds, how the prison environments affect behaviours patterns, whether substance abuses, etc reinforces recidivistic tendencies. “At this point, we need to learn far more about effective ways to encourage offenders to “stay straight” in the context of work programs. Unfortunately, this process will, by definition, take place largely outside of prison. As a result, there may be inherent limitations on how much we can expect prison managers to do beyond cooperating in attempts to smooth the reentry process.” (Bushway, 2003, P.15).

Opportunities and threats and how the latter are overcome

Coming to the second part of the essay it could be said that the main opportunities that resulted from this study stemmed from the fact that it may be sometime difficult to correctly gauge the behavioural aspects of offenders that need to be taken into consideration. It is the ardent belief of all social scientists, behavioural experts and criminologists dealing with such recidivism to instill a belief in the offenders that they need to reform their ways and refrain from repeated criminal manifestations. The opportunities presented itself in undertaking research on what prompted such offenders to be repeat criminals and why they were not being able to join the reformed mainstream of society. It has been found that in many cases, employability of offenders were low and more so in case of habitual criminals who wished to reform. Again, the need for society to taken action to reform these criminals and, more importantly, the self-belief and self-will of these sections of society, to reform them would also pose as important challenges. “With proper assessment of these factors, researchers and practitioners have demonstrated that it is possible to classify offenders according to their relative likelihood of committing new offenses with as much as 80 percent accuracy.” (Gornik ).These challenges could be met by taking informed decisions regarding the method of undertaking relevant investigations into aspects influencing upon recidivism and the ways and means by which this social problem could be tackled and alleviated to a certain extent, if not resolved.

Conclusion

There being a plethora of factors that govern , either directly or indirectly the control and resolution of recidivism, it would be necessary to develop an all round approach of research studies encompassing both the positive and negative aspects of this problem and how it impacts individuals and agencies. While the individual treatment and rehabilitation is important, it is also necessary to provide necessary avenues for the reformed criminals and offenders to be able to contribute to the well being of the social mainstream of the country. If a large portion of offenders were able to be reformed through institutional training and development, this problem would definitely be controllable and augment well for all concerned, the government, the agencies and the offenders themselves.

Reference

Bushway, Shawn. (2003). Employment Dimensions of Reentry: Understanding the Nexus Between Prisoner Reentry and Work: Reentry and Prison Work Programs: Conclusion, Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable. P.15. 2008. Web.

Gornik, Mark. Moving from Correctional Program to Correctional Strategy: Using Proven Practices to Change Criminal Behavior. 2008. Web.

Introduction

Criminal justice can be defined as the process by which nations and even the local governments of a country use in trying to administer justice or even social control in a country. Criminal justice can be applicable in most of the countries so that the government can be in a position to deter the many crimes plus sanctioning those deviants in our societies who try to break these laws. So with criminal justice, it is primarily the work of the police and the prosecutes. These are the only people who are concerned with law enforcement but not the military group. You find that the police who are the law enforcement groups in accordance with the courts, attorneys and local jails are concerned with ensuring that security has been maintained in the country through ensuring that those people who are caught deviating from the law can be arrested. So in this case the law enforcement makes the various laws which are supposed to be followed by the citizens of that country and incase anyone deviates from the law, the accused is processed by the law enforcement through the criminal justice system. The government is also involved in this case in trying to ensure that a proper framework of laws that are supposed to protect the citizens of that country have been made hence protecting the individual rights. So in this case, in the pursuit of the criminal justice, it is seen as a fair process whereby punishment is given to the offender as per the type of criminal which is done by the offender when found guilty. So the issue of military shift to the law enforcement is not the best way to go. (Kennedy, 2000).

Arguments against

The issue of enforcing criminal law is the work of the police and this was popularized in the year 1930s as the police was seen as the group which is concerned with law enforcement. It is the law enforcement which is then concerned with ensuring that there is law and order in the country but not the military shift in the law enforcement. The issue of military shift to the law enforcement will mean that there will be low performance of the activities which will be done by the military group. This is because you tend to find that most of the military forces are concerned with external security unlike the law enforcement which is concerned with ensuring that there is internal security in the country. So it will mean that when military work is shifted to the law enforcement, there will be low performance in trying to administer social justice to the members of the public simply because you will find that these military forces have only been trained to provide external security. External security in the sense that they try to ensure that all the country borders have been protected and also incase a country has been invaded by terrorists or even incase of wars, this is now the right time when the military groups can be seen to be quite effective in providing its military services. They tend to deal with any external attacks which might be from another country but they are not trained in administering justice in the country. So it will mean that shifting the military work to the law enforcement will mean that there will be more criminals in the country since these people have not been trained to deal with criminals at all but they have been trained on ensuring that our borders have been protected and hence no attack from another country.

The proper channel of trying to administer justice will not be followed in that, you find that when trying to administer law and justice, there has to be a written down law which is used to ensure that there is a fair justice for those people who have been convicted with such crimes. So you will find that if the military forces are shifted to the issue of military enforcement, there will be no fair justice which will be given to those criminals who have been got with such crimes. This is because they have no ideas as far as criminal justice is concerned since you find that they have only been trained to shoot. This is because they deal with foreigners and also with the terrorists and do not also know how to address to the people who have been caught with such behaviors. In this case the argument here is that most of the military groups have only been trained in handling guns. The only training which they got was on how to use guns and on how to deal with terrorist but not on making laws. So in this case the work of law enforcement should only be left on the police and the prosecutors since you will find that these are the only people who deal with the internal security and have been trained in ensuring that there is order in our country. (Kennedy, 2000).

You find that in most cases the first conduct which the offender comes upon with criminal justice is usually the police or the law enforcement and it is this police who tries to invest the type of crime this particular offender has done and when found guilty, he is arrested by the police. It is only the police or the law enforcement that have been empowered by the government to use any force in trying to ensure criminal justice. The law enforcement uses the legal coercion and other legal means so that they can try to ensure that there is order and social justice in most of our societies. But for the case of the military force, they have no powers to use any force or even other legal coercions unless there is a state of emergency which has been called by the president of that country. It is only during this particular time when now the military force can be allowed to ensure that there is law and order in the country. It’s only the police who are also the law enforcement who are allowed to exercise this power to the citizens of the country in order to ensure that the individual rights have been recognized. The law enforcement are concerned with making the various laws of the country and also ensuring that such laws have been followed by the citizens living in that country. This is one of the ways which they use in trying to administer justice through arresting those criminals who are convicted with crimes said to be against the law of the country. (Friedman, 2000).

The military forces can be differentiated so much from the law enforcement depending on the many roles which they tend to play in the country. So in each department, it means that each group has its own assigned roles which it has to do but shifting the work of a particular group in to another group will mean that less work will be done and also when done, it will not be done correctly. This is because like any organization, you tend to find that there are so many departments and each department is assigned its own roles. This is very much important to ensure that effective services can be given to the members of the public. So the case of military forces and the law enforcement will also apply here. These are two different departments with different roles to play in the society. So when one is shifted in to the other, it will mean that there will be less total output in to the society. So the issue of shifting the military work in to law enforcement or even shifting law enforcement in to military will mean that the work will not be done effective. Each group should do its own work. For the military group, it should deal with the work of ensuring that there is external securing in the country but the work of law enforcement should only be left on the police. It is through this that you will find that there is law and order in the country due to work differentiation and specialization. You will find that the country will be in a position to be free from any external attacks which might be as a result of terrorist invading a country. A good example to explain this is in US whereby most of the military forces are not involved in the law enforcement but they only operate externally in ensuring that the countries borders have been protected since you find that most of the terrorists use the country’s border to invade the country. So this will mean that its only the police which will be involved in ensuring that there is law and order in the society through ensuring that all criminals have been put in arrest so as to ensure that people are in a position to live happily in their own country with no cases of criminalities. This is because you tend to find that most of the criminal behaviors can sometimes be so much threatening and can affect the economic growth of the country. (Friedman, 2000).

Arguments for

In a way, you find that the military forces can be shifted in law enforcement. This can happen in cases when there is an increased insecurity in the country say when there are political conflicts, ethnic conflicts plus other sources of conflicts which might occur in the country. A good example to explain these phenomena can be traced to the Kenya presidential elections conflicts which led to so many political conflicts. It was during this time when so many ethnic groups were fighting against each other hence lead to so many deaths of innocent people and others were displaced. So, with these phenomena, it can be argued that the military forces can be shifted in ensuring that there is law and order in the country when such conflicts escalate so much leading to so many deaths of the people. When ethnic groups fight against each other, you find that the law enforcement groups which is the police can not be effective in such a scenario and hence it is the time now when the military forces can be called to help in law enforcement. It is the time like in Kenya when the president of the country calls for a state of emergency with the military forces ruling the country. It is during this time when the military forces come together and try to ensure that there is a criminal justice in the country. (Chapin, 2004).

Another argument is the issue of corruption. You tend to find that most of the law enforcement bodies tend to be so much corrupt and hence criminal justice is never realized. A good example to explain this is in Kenya whereby most if not all of the police and the other law enforcement bodies are said to be corrupt unlike the military forces. You find that law in not at all followed since most of these people receive bribes and its only the poor who are misused in this case. So I tend to believe that trying the military force in to the law enforcement can sometime work effectively since they are not as corrupt as the police. You find that under the law enforcement, there are laws which have been established by the country to be followed but they are not followed at all. These laws only favor the most powerful and also the rich in most of our societies hence criminal justice is not fair at all. The rate of criminals is still at a rise since most of the criminals are discharged out of bribery. So with this military shift to law enforcement work and law enforcement shift to military work can be effective in such a case. (Chapin, 2004).

Conclusion

The administration of justice is one of the most essential things in any given country. This is because it is through a proper administration of justice that a country can be in a position to protect its people from so many problems which tend to happen in a particular society. The work of administering justice should be left on the law enforcement bodies that are trained in ensuring that all criminals have been brought in to book and no shootings like the case with the military forces that have been trained to shoot. So, rules should be established by the law enforcement to ensure that people’s rights have been respected and if anyone is caught deviating from such rules, the proper procedure should be taken as per those rules. So with this, military forces should not be shifted in the law enforcement since you will find that if they are shifted, then it will mean that law and order will not be achieved since these people have not be trained in ensuring that there is law and order in a given country.

Reference

Kennedy, R. (2000): The state and the criminal law. Harvard Law Journal. Vol. 107.

Friedman, L. (2000): Crime and justice in America history. Journal of criminal justice. Vol. 5.

Chapin, B. (2004): Crime and punishment in America history. Georgia law review, Vol. 11.

Problems and Issues

Criminal justice system is a critical section of the American structure. Police departments of various states are experiencing a notable change. Police departments and its functions, chain of commands, and administrative strategies are becoming gradually more equal to that of other security agencies and institutions.

However, there are certain problems and issues found in criminal justice sectors, which include corruption and brutality incidences that have harshly stained the people’s trust in the police. Due to this, law enforcement administrators are undergoing major challenges of reforming the police departments and criminal justice system in general.

The criminal justice system is a big and an extensive section of the legislative and judicial limbs of the United States. Overcrowding is among the main issues experienced in the criminal courts currently. The competence of the court system worsens as the courts collapse, as well as the condition of the buildings has created the security complicated. Another problem is the issue of public access to the court proceedings since the media sections are requesting the courts to allow live coverage of court proceedings.

They assert that the citizens have a right to follow the proceedings and that limited seating during trials should not be an issue since the media should televise the proceedings to the people in homes. However, opponents assert that the existence of media will alter the actions of the witnesses and court officers in approaches that have an impact on the fairness of the trial (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 165).

Currently, the racial issues among the inmates have greatly brought about extensive social problems that correctional agencies and employees are regularly being requested to attend to.

Other problems and issues such as inadequate training, insufficient skills on advanced technology, obligatory overtime, overcrowding, gang actions, and violence inside the institutions are the main issues that cause work-related pressures and stress among the correctional workers. The current correctional settings affect both the correctional officers and inmates.

Administrative Techniques to Improve Criminal Justice System

Criminal justice system requires more improvements to enhance its operations and outcome. The system should permit for transformation, not just rehabilitation to the inmates. Another major strategy to improve criminal justice system is to give enough incentives to prosecutors to redirect people with mental disorders outside the jail section.

They should bear in mind exceptional appeals, and deferred prosecution accords to the level that diversion finances and management is obtainable. The duties of a police officer should be redefined with the contribution from the society. The focus on police officers to gain compliance should be substituted with a focus on working jointly with the community to unravel criminal behaviors and issues.

The employment requirement and recruitment procedures for criminal justice employees should be revised to go with the current roles. They should be trained on how to mediate disputes and address problems rather than focus on physical roles (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, p. 165).

Training of criminal justice staff should be advanced in a way that it will include the community, and adult training skills should substitute boot camp techniques. Criminal justice sectors should raise the diversity of workers in an attempt to have more knowledge about the issues of minority sections in the society. The appropriate administrators should take direct and proper punitive activities against officers who misuse their authority or who cover-up for other colleagues’ severe misbehavior.

Reference

Neubauer, D., & Fradella, H. (2010). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

The significance of media in the contemporary world can hardly be underrated. Ubiquitous and persistent, modern media shapes people’s opinions, making the latter geared towards a specific idea or concept. As a result, media defines people’s opinions concerning a range of topics, including the issue of the criminal justice policy (Reiner-Hofer, Webb, & Scheurer, 2014). Seeing that the opinion of public affects the way, in which the criminal justice policy evolves, it can be assumed that media, which affect people’s viewpoints to a considerable degree, shaping it in accordance with the concepts that are currently promoted by modern media as acceptable in the contemporary society.

A closer look at the way, in which specific information is represented in news and media will reveal that the latter, in fact, use framing techniques in order to shed light on particular issues and, thus, affect people’s perception of a certain problem. Consequently, an appropriate criminal justice policy aspect is reinforced to facilitate the safety of the community. For instance, the recent concern about child abuse has resulted in a variety of news reports addressing the problem of child neglect and abuse cases (Davies, Matthews, & Reed, 2014). As a result, the current policy regarding child safety and the prevention of instances of child abuse has been reinforced significantly in my community (Gutman & Yon, 2014).

Apart from getting the key postulates of criminal justice across to the target denizens of the population, media also shapes people’s idea of injustice significantly. A certain biased political event, when viewed through the prism of a particular viewpoint, becomes easily recognizable and, therefore, relatable (Suerte, 2014). As a result, the tools used for information transfer in media, often define the manner, in which the information will be provided to the target audience: “Communicative structures promote the perception of incidents of injustice by the provision of relevant information” (Rothmund, Golwitzer, Baunmer & Schmidt, 2013, p. 178). It should be noted that the media serves two functions in the specified scenario. To be more exact, it performs the function of both the tool for spreading awareness concerning a specific issue, which is child abuse in the given case, and also works as the means of convincing people that child abuse is a topical issue. Moreover, media has contributes to busting a range of myths concerning child abuse, such as the misconception that only a man and not a woman can be a child abuser (Tapia, 2014). Thus, public opinion on a particular subject matter, such as the criminal justice policy, is produced (Reiner-Hofer et al., 2014).

Based on the analysis of the local criminal justice policy adopted in a specific area, one may assume that the role of media is not merely big but has consistently been getting increasingly high over the past few years. The phenomenon under analysis can be attributed partially to the fact that the introduction of modern media into the lives of ordinary people has provided more opportunities for information sharing and, therefore, the tools for framing information in a specific manner (Gutman & Yon, 2014). Additionally, the enhancement of modern media and especially some of its properties, such as the chance for inviting more people to discussing and participating in a particular social or political event, have provided legitimate grounds for media to be considered the key driving force behind the reinforcement of certain regulations regarding the criminal justice policy. Whether guided by the will of people or the interests of a certain party, media affects the way, in which people perceive and interpret objective reality; as a result, media changes the criminal justice policy gradually. The case in point is a graphic example of how media affects the reinforcement and change of the state policy concerning criminal justice. By convincing people that the instances of child abuse are getting increasingly high, media has altered the criminal justice policy regarding the subject matter. As a result, the policies concerning child safety and security have been enhanced significantly. The case in point is a graphic example of media in general, and modern media in particular, altering criminal justice policies within a specific area.

Although it is technically the public opinion that affects criminal justice policy significantly, contributing to the alteration of the existing rules and regulations, the effects of media on the evolution of the criminal justice policy are to be taken into consideration as well, since they define the viewpoints of most denizens of the population. Therefore, it can be assumed that media in general and modern media in particular defines the way, in which the criminal justice policy is shaped. Promoting a specific idea and reinforcing it as the only legitimate solution, modern media have a huge effect on the criminal justice policy, as the information represented in it is inescapable for anyone, who surfs the Internet and communicates via social networks. Therefore, it can be considered that the influence of media on criminal justice policy is getting increasingly big.

Reference List

Davies, E., Matthews, B., & Reed, J. (2014). Mandatory reporting? Issues to consider when developing legislation and policy to improve discovery of child abuse. IALS Student Law Review, 2(1), 9–28.

Gutman, G. B. & Yon, Y. (2014). Elder abuse and neglect in disasters: Types, prevalence and research gaps. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10(1), 38–47.

Reiner-Hofer, R., Webb, B., & Scheurer, E. (2014). Forensigraphy: The integration of imaging techniques into the criminal justice system. European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 2(1), 47–56.

Rothmund, T., Gollwitzer, M., Baumert, A, & Schmitt, M. (2013). The psychological functions of justice in mass media. In R. Tamborini (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (p. 170-197). New York City, New York: Routledge.

Suerte, R. (2014). Media, crime, and criminal justice. Boston, Massachusetts: Cngage Learning.

Tapia, N. D. (2014). Survivors of child sexual abuse and predictors of adult re-victimization in the United States: A forward logistic regression analysis. Official Journal of the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV), 9(1), 64–73.

Introduction

Problem analysis involves studying a problem thoroughly with an aim of understanding how the problem came about and how it developed into its current state. Problem analysis is important because it helps to find out the cause of a problem and its solution as this is the basic assumption in problem analysis. When one identifies the cause of a problem they can eliminate it and solve the problem. The discussion in this paper will identify a problem in the criminal justice system and research possible programmatic solutions by benchmarking best practices.

Main Text

The criminal justice system is dogged by many problems in many countries across the globe. We have the problem of wrongful convictions. Innocent people are convicted and sent to jail for crimes they did not commit while the guilty ones go free.

This is because the criminal justice system is controlled by defense lawyers who are wily judges and the entire court staff that bully witness. This leads to erosion of the public confidence in the criminal justice system because the legitimacy of a criminal justice system rests on it s effectiveness and fairness. It is said to be effective and fair if the accused are investigated thoroughly and convicted after all evidences have been exhausted and they are found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. For example some judges have been sent for refresher courses on how to avoid wrongful convictions (Risman, 2002:1).

There are many factors that may lead to wrongful convictions. The first one is sham prosecutors, overconfident eyewitnesses, lying informants from jailhouses and the inept lawyers and overzealous prosecutors who jeopardize the chances of the accused for fair trials and conviction of the accused prior to the trial by the public and the media especially in the case of high profile cases (Risman, 2002:1). We also have wrongful convictions through mistaken identification by witnesses and lack of channels to address the wrongful conviction.

Identification by eyewitnesses is unreliable at times. This is because many innocent people have been people identified as the wrongdoers and hence the ideal that “no innocent man shall be punished “(Samaha, 2005:241) has not been achieved. These identifications by eyewitnesses account for over half of all wrongful convictions. There is the instance when seven people identified Bernard Pagano as a robber while the real robber was Ronald Clouser (Samaha, 2005:241).

The faulty identifications occur because people are not very good observers and they are not as good as a camera. In addition when under stress we have inaccurate observations which are compounded by our difficulty in identifying strangers and especially from another race according to studies done by psychologists (Samaha, 2005:241).

Racial discrimination leads to wrongful convictions. In a study done in 2004 more Hispanics in the United States were imprisoned than whites for the same crimes. This is due to a number of factors like racial profiling where more Hispanics were arrested in their neighborhoods which are considered high crime areas. Furthermore when taken to court most were incarcerated because they were represented by public legal counsel who was underpaid. The issue of mandatory minimums led many behind bars even for low level crimes (Samaha, 2005:252-255).

Other people are convicted wrongfully due to police corruption. Some policemen will take bribe not to appear as witnesses or to make false confessions on behalf of rich accused. Some will also respond very slowly when called for assistance, others sleep on their jobs and hence do not do proper investigation leading to wrong people being convicted (Samaha, 2005:254). This is because when taken to take a person is assumed to be guilty and trying to b proved innocent instead of the vice versa. The court should not be taken as a place for the guilty one alone to avoid these wrongful convictions.

The police should be made to take responsibility for their actions. They should be prosecuted and disciplined. When they bring false or illegally obtained proof or evidence in court it should not be used to avoid wrongful convictions.

The exclusionary rule should be used. It throws out good evidence because of bad police behavior” this rule prohibits the use of confessions that are obtained by force thus go against the right that protects an individual against self-incrimination. This is because sometimes the accused are tortured and forced to confess they committed a crime. Due to the pressure, fear and pain they go ahead and plea they are guilty and end up behind bars. The rule also prohibits the use of faulty eye witness identification and evidence got through the violation of the right to counsel. However, most countries do not have this rule except England, United States Canada and Germany (Samaha, 2005:254).

Racial profiling and discrimination should be avoided to avoid wrongful arrests of innocent people just because of their skin color.

The policemen should not only record the confessions but the whole interrogation process. This would help to determine whether the police used threats, deception etc to get the confessions they present in courts (Douglas, Burgess W, Burgess G & Ressler, 2006:502). This would also help to know whether the confession originated from the confessor or the idea was put into him or her.

The police should follow the guidelines when conducting eye witnesses’ identifications. A study done by the Innocence Institute of Park University in 2005 found out that many policemen do not adhere to the guidelines. There should be a double blind method where the police conducting the identification is not involved with the investigation at hand. The witness should also be told that the suspect might not be among the mug shots. This will prevent them from identifying the wrong person just because they do ant want to be seen as having failed (Douglass et al, 2006 :498).

Conclusion

More importantly scientific based evidence should be used to avoid wrongful convictions because it is more reliable for instance in case of a rape DNA should be used to identify the suspect as it is more reliable than identification by a witness. The criminal justice system should prevent wrongful convictions by pursuing the truth at the investigation stage. The detectives should use their knowledge to search out the truth objectively. On the other hand the prosecutors should not only be interested in winning a case but in the actual truth. This will ensure that the innocent do not get convicted but the guilty ones get to pay for their actions. This will also help to restore public confidence in the justice system by the system is fair and effective.

References

Douglass, J. E., Burgess, A.W., Burgess, G.A. &Ressler, K.R. (2006). Crime classification Manual a standard system for investigating and classifying violent crimes (2^nd Ed.), New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0787985015, 9780787985011.

Risman, B. (2002). What is wrong with the Criminal Justice System ? Web.

Samaha, J. (2005). Criminal Justice (7^th Ed.), Auckland: Cengage Learning ISBN 0534645577, 9780534645571. Web.

Introduction

Despite the fact that the criminal justice policy is shaped by the bills passed by the Congress (Toch & Maguire, 2014), the significance of public opinion on the subject matter is very high. Since the basic principles of democracy are promoted actively in the modern society, it is only logical that people should assume a more active position in improving the criminal justice policy.

The specified effects of public opinion on the criminal justice policy, however, cannot be considered entirely positive. The lack of expertise on the subject matter among most members of the U.S. population is the key reason for concern. Although most people feel intuitively what is right and what is wrong, their concept of justice is still far superficial to constitute a decent basis for the criminal justice policy (Toch & Maguire, 2014). Therefore, the influence, which public opinion has on the issue in question, can be regarded as dubious.

However, the introduction of information technology into the everyday life of the U.S. population allows for addressing the issue mentioned above by increasing awareness on topical issues concerning criminal justice. As a result, people have an opportunity to become more educated on the topic; consequently, their opinions on the issue of the criminal justice policy have a chance at becoming more competent Therefore, the disadvantage mentioned above can be viewed as minor given the fact that modern IT tools allow addressing it rather easily.

Therefore, the impact of the public opinion on the criminal justice policy adopted in the U.S. can be deemed as high. People shape the law as the society evolves. The phenomenon in question helps update legal policies in accordance with the standards of the 21^st century.

Role of Interest Groups in Rehabilitation Policies Success

The very concept of rehabilitation groups is admittedly controversial (). Although the idea of providing criminals with a chance to mend their ways and become decent members of the society is rather noble, assuming that they will be able to change radically is rather naïve. Herein the key controversy of the issue lies.

At present, the issue of rehabilitation is addressed in the state policies such as the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) deserve to be mentioned. The specified act is aimed at putting the emphasis on rehabilitation of criminals rather than their punishment. In other words, the people, who cannot be viewed as serious offenders, are offered a second chance with the promotion of NORA and are capable of integrating back in the society without resorting to their criminal practices.

As far as the key interest groups in relation to the state rehabilitation policies are concerned, organizations such as the National Justice Association (National Justice Association, 2015) need to be brought up. Organizations such as the one mentioned above contribute to the evolution of the existing justice system by voicing the concerns of specific denizens of the local population.

The effects of the specified groups on the rehabilitation policies are rather ambiguous. On the one hand, the groups in question have enough influence to convey the message concerning people’s needs and demands so that the policies in question could be altered correspondingly. On the other hand, the weight of these groups may be used in an inappropriate manner. Consequently, the security of the American society may be jeopardized due to poorly written and executed laws.

Reference List

National Justice Association. (2015). Web.

Toch, H. & Maguire, K. (2014). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related topics. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 424–444.