Category: Criminal Justice

The final paper discusses the premises of wrongful convictions and why it should be seen by the government as one of the most critical issues that are inherent in the current legislation. The basis of research on the issue of wrongful convictions is supported by a number of articles that address this criminal justice misconception from a number of perspectives and define police misconduct as one of the key factors that contribute to the increased number of wrongful convictions. The core underlying characteristics of wrongful convictions and implications of the latter for criminal and social justice are reviewed within the framework of this paper.

Literature Review

In their article, Kent and Carmichael (2015) discussed the problem of an increased number of wrongful conviction. They also found that throughout the last decade, the number of resultant exonerations also underwent a substantial increase. Kent and Carmichael (2015) identified that public confidence in the existing criminal justice and its authoritative power directly depended on the number of convictions (regardless of whether they were rightful or wrongful).

According to the authors of the article, the core problem of the current criminal justice system consists in the fact that there are states that choose not to adopt the laws that accept the due process clause. In perspective, this limits the level of protection against an increased number of wrongful convictions. Kent and Carmichael (2015) successfully identified that the due process clause was commonly disregarded in the Republican-based states while the so-called “innocence movement” was adopted by Democratic-based states. It is safe to say that the authors of the article thoroughly discussed the ways in which the policy affects the criminal justice system, its structure, and its organization. It is reflected by the problems that interfere with the implementation of a crime prevention strategy intended to reduce the number of wrongful convictions within both social and political contexts.

Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012) conducted another research in which they analyzed the impact of wrongful convictions on crime deterrence. Not surprisingly, it was found that the enforcement of this policy led to increased deterrence rates. The authors of the article mentioned that this supposition is widely criticized regardless of the practical evidence. According to Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012), wrongful convictions may have a negative influence on the criminal justice system in case if they adversely affect the balance between the innocent and the guilty. Overall, deterrence is moderately influenced by wrongful convictions due to the fact that the latter expose the public to the jeopardies of committing crimes. There are numerous circumstances that should be taken into consideration when discussing deterrence and its influence on different social layers.

Another research on wrongful convictions was conducted by Covey (2013) who believed that the police also impact the occurrence rate of wrongful convictions. Both the hypothesis and the basic premise of the author revolve around the fact that innocent people are the most common target when it comes to wrongful convictions that were committed through the fault of the law enforcement officers (Covey, 2013). The ideas of the author of this article also interconnect with the concepts that were discussed by Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012) because the discussion of the latter not only presupposed that wrongful convictions lowered deterrence, but also proved that police officers are not strangers to the substitution of evidence or falsification of testimonies.

They also believed that an increased number of wrongful convictions would have a positive impact on the society due to increased deterrence and public exposure to the outcomes of crime and punishment (Marion & Oliver, 2015). After comparing the previous exemption studies to the current mass exoneration reports, Covey (2013) recommended making two critical modifications.

First, he argued that the number of guilty pleas has increased significantly, so it is important to review the process of criminal conviction. According to the findings of Covey’s (2013) study, almost 90% of all cases ended up with the innocent defendants pleading guilty. Second, he advocated for the fact that wrongful convictions cannot protect the guilty by means of innocent guilty pleas. The effects of these recommendations are not expected to impact the criminal justice system right away. One of the reasons is the flexibility of constitutional rules that is recurrently abused by the police so as to cover the acts of corruption or noncompliance with the rules mentioned above.

Relationship between the Stakeholders

The relationship between the stakeholders (local, state, and federal) can be explained by the breakdown of the data obtained by Kent and Carmichael (2015). They claimed that this relationship is highly contingent on public opinion and there are critical implications that should be taken into account.

Throughout the process of investigating the relationships between the three key stakeholders, it was found that there are variables inherent in these relationships that contributed to an increase in the number of wrongful convictions (Mallicoat, 2016). This supposition is supported by the extensive evidence presented by the authors of the reviewed articles. According to Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012), the relationships between the stakeholders contain a number of predictors of wrongful convictions and are positively associated with the social context.

Constitutional Issues That Should Be Addressed

One of the constitutional issues that should be addressed by the US policymakers is poor implementation of the due process clause. Therefore, the existing criminal justice system is contingent on the need to reduce the number of wrongful convictions by means of transformation of the fundamental principles of the US criminal justice (Marion & Oliver, 2015). An in-depth review of this constitutional issue showed that there is a need to apply the due process clause more often. Nonetheless, it is not necessary to oppose any of the political parties or other governmental structures in order to increase the flexibility of the current approach to the wrongful conviction policy.

On a bigger scale, the constitutional issue heavily depends on how the courts are going to react to the application of the due process clause in situations where false testimonies preceded wrongful convictions. Even though in the majority of the cases judges are aware of the importance of employing the due process clause in a consistent way, they do not do it. This directs us to the question of whether there is an adequate possibility to help the defendants that cannot overcome the barriers that were thrown in by the judicial decisions. In order to stay protected, the defendant is required to go through numerous check-ups, and false testimonies should be double-checked as well.

There is a number of ways that can be helpful in avoiding wrongful convictions that occur by reason of false testimony. First of all, the judges should do their best to make sure that no false testimonies are involved in the trial process and the knowledge of the falsity is efficiently used in order to safeguard the defendant (this also relates to all the other actors involved as they may possess critical information regarding the testimony and a failure to inform the judges will become beneficial to the prosecution and leave no chance to the defendant).

Second, the definition of untruthfulness does not have to be directly linked to the false testimony and the due process claim that was grounded on it (Zalman, 2014). Even if it is slightly misleading, it is already a problem. Third, the judges have to be more empathic to the existing standards of applying (false) testimony to the case and outline a set of measures that would apply in the case if the witness hit the court with false testimony during the initial trial. To conclude, the topic of constitutional issues should also be supported by the fact that the court should be able to “diagnose” false testimony because the defense would not be able to do anything even if they knew that the testimony was false (unless the falseness was fully exposed during one of the hearings).

Revision of the Existing Policy

The criminal justice policy regarding wrongful convictions should be revised in order to correlate with the findings of the reviewed articles and minimize the occurrence of wrongful convictions (Miles & Raynor, 2014). One of the most significant criminal justice issues is the distinction of the existing policy. It is also important to mention that the changes in the wrongful conviction policy may have a huge impact on the internal criminal justice operations. It is important to address the issue of indefinite and ineffective local measures against wrongful convictions. Moreover, the majority of the measures that are currently taking place are not even aimed at reducing the number of wrongful convictions at all.

The effect of the revised policy on social justice can be presented as a unified approach to the problem of wrongful convictions. This point is of pivotal importance to the existing criminal justice system because the contemporary legislation presupposes that each state in the US applies its own approach to dealing with wrongful convictions (Siegel, 2015). On a bigger scale, the current policy should be revised so as to get in line with the evidence presented in this paper. The current US criminal justice system lacks flexibility, so it is crucial to address the issue of wrongful convictions in order to restore the balance of justice between the innocent and the guilty and increase the occurrence of use of the due process clause in every state (Huff, 2013).

Moreover, it is also critical to address the issue that relates to one of the constitutional calamities and revisit the legislation regarding the actions that should be taken if the prosecution reaches a verdict based on false testimony and does not recognize the falseness of the latter. The problem should be viewed as the lack of trial knowledge and consider the subsequent conviction a violation of the due process clause. On a bigger scale, it is important to revise the current policy because the court has to extend the protection grounded on the due process clause and grant the defendant a better chance to overcome the existing criminal justice barriers (Zalman, 2014). It is reasonable to do so because false testimony affects the number of wrongful convictions, and defendants require a much higher level of protection to evade false testimony and its dreadful consequences.

The Impact of the Policy on Criminal Justice

The impact of the wrongful conviction policy on criminal justice in the United States is rather significant because the defendant commonly has a rather short time frame to present any relevant evidence to the court. The lack of constitutional arguments leads to a situation where a new trial is impossible without newly revealed evidence (Cutler, 2012). This exposes a number of weaknesses in terms of criminal justice that should be addressed by the legislative body of the US. The first issue is connected to the limited time of filing the motion. The second problem relates to the due diligence clause which is not used effectively and does not preclude new trials.

The third weakness of the current policy is the low standard of the concepts that are used in court to protect the defendant from a wrongful conviction (Huff, 2013). The question that has to be answered is whether these concepts should make it easier for the defendant to evade conviction if a false testimony or untruthfulness is revealed during the trial. Even though the due process clause is not violated by the ingenuous use of false testimony, there should be a line drawn between the new evidence and false testimony that leads to wrongful conviction. When it comes to the challenges associated with wrongful convictions, we have to identify a way to stabilize the relationship between the defendant’s and administration’s interests (Zalman, 2014). The consequent accuracy of the verdict will either signal the prevalence of unfairness by means of wrongful conviction or assist the defendant in overcoming the barriers inherent in the existing criminal justice system of the United States.

The Impact of the Policy on Social Justice

The effect of the author’s recommendations on social justice can be characterized as a reduced occurrence of perjury inherent in the wrongful conviction cases. Even though the forgery of testimonies receives a lot of attention, this issue is still one of the key contributors to the overall number of wrongful convictions. Reforming the criminal justice apparatus should become one of the top priorities of the current government due to the irreducible occurrence of police misconduct and subsequent wrongful convictions. It is safe to say that wrongful convictions are directly dependent on the attitudes of police officers and their probable misconduct.

The key problem, in this case, consists in the fact that the individuals that were wrongfully convicted due to police misconduct are more at risk of being exposed to the adverse limitations of the existing criminal justice system (Mallicoat, 2016). For instance, the evidence shows that such convictions are not prevalent and they are rather trivial if compared to the cases that involved the DNA exoneration or any other cases that are similar to those mentioned above. Wrongful convictions that are connected to police misconduct usually revolve around guns, drugs, resisting arrest, or belligerent behavior aimed at the police officers (Kent & Carmichael, 2015). There is an incalculable number of people who were wrongfully convicted on the basis of such indictments. We may not know the percentage of those actually innocent individuals that were wrongfully convicted, but it is evident that police misconduct gives rise to wrongful convictions.

References

Covey, R. (2013). Police misconduct as a cause of wrongful convictions. Washington University Law Review, 90(4), 1133-1189.

Cutler, B. L. (2012). Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Garoupa, N., & Rizzolli, M. (2012). Wrongful convictions do lower deterrence. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 168(2), 224-231.

Huff, C. R. (2013). Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice: Causes and remedies in North American and European criminal justice systems. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kent, S., & Carmichael, J. (2015). Legislative responses to wrongful conviction: Do partisan principals and advocacy efforts influence state-level criminal justice policy? Social Science Research, 52(2), 147-160.

Mallicoat, S. (2016). Crime and criminal justice: Concepts and controversies. New York, NY: SAGE.

Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. (2015). Public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miles, H., & Raynor, P. (2014). Reintegrative justice in practice: The informal management of crime in an island community. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Siegel, L. J. (2015). Criminology: The core (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Zalman, M. (2014). Wrongful conviction and criminal justice reform: Making justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Analysis of Evidence-Based Approaches

The concept of evidence-based practice has preoccupied many of the modern disciplines mostly because of its success in offering breakthroughs in areas that had traditionally defied other conventional methods of solving issues. In the criminal justice system, evidence-based approach has had invaluable benefits in coming up with corrective measures that have ensured that crime is mitigated and the rates of recidivism reduced. As noted by Latessa, (2004), states that have opted to adopt the evidence-based approach to manage their corrective systems such as the state of Oklahoma and Oregon have noticed considerable benefits in the success of the corrective services. This is an indication that evidence based practice in the criminal justice system has gained preeminence, which means that there are some benefits that this approach is offering to the systems.

Evidence-based approaches seem to have concentrated on the issues of policies that deal with administration of correctional institutions. Evidence-based practice in the criminal justice sector has concentrated on policies that deal with the administration of these sectors based on the correctional process of the incarcerated persons. The main issues that are proposed by most evidence-based practitioners are all geared towards promoting the success of the correctional facilities in deterring future criminal acts as well as recidivism of former criminals (Sandra and Davies, 2000).

However, not all issues can be address through evidence based practice. As noted by Sandra and Davies, (2000), the major setback of the evidence based practice is that it tries to bring new knowledge in areas that people think they already know how they should be managed. This becomes hard for the correctional facilities to base all core functional areas to evidence based approaches. Despite its enumerable success, evidence based practice has had little impact on punitive measures that can be more effective in the process of rehabilitating offenders.

Assessment of Evidence-Based Approaches

Evidence based approach has numerous benefits in the process of policy formulation in the criminal justice system. As noted by Latessa, (2004), evidence based approach has led to reduced recidivism since the application of the approach to people undergoing probation are trained on various measures that would discourage them from tripping back to the unwanted behavior. In his study at the Oklahoma state, Latessa, (2004), notes that the adoption of the evidence based practice by the State’s criminal justice system has had a turnaround in the rating that today, there is no prison facility that is currently rated as poor as far as the execution of the set mandate is concerned.

However, despite the benefits that have been enhanced by the use of evidence-based practice, it is faced by several constraints. As noted by Sandra and Davies, (2000), the major drawback that exists in the use of evidence based practice is the availability of evidence that will not be contested by the stakeholders. Beside the lack of consensus and congruence in regard to the quality of the evidence gathered, Latessa, (2004), further notes that people have a predisposition concerning how certain processes should be carried. For instance, people have a set mind concerning what should be effective correctional approaches just as they hold what should be the teaching approaches to their children at the school.

In conclusion, it is evident that the role of evidence-based approaches in the criminal justice system is invaluable. Evidence-based approaches should be given preeminence as they have proved that they have the ability to offer better correctional services to the offenders. The comparative study done by Latessa, (2004), concerning the success of evidence based practice in several states should be used as the benchmark to encourage the adoption of evidence based approaches in various correctional facilities.

References

Latessa, E. (2004). The Challenge of Change: Correctional Programs and Evidence- Based Practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 4: 547-560.

Sandra, N. & Davies, H. (2000). Criminal Justice: Using Evidence to Reduce Crime, Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Criminal justice research deals with practices of promoting and upholding social control, fighting crime, conducting investigations, dispensing penalties, and overseeing rehabilitation efforts. Criminal justice also occupies itself with studying the correlations between many factors that affect societies, individuals, and crime rates (“Criminology and criminal justice research,” 2016). There are plenty of possible topics for applied research studies in criminal justice. This paper is going to outline three problems that could be investigated within the scope of dedicated research, along with independent and dependent variables that would play a role in it. Dependent variables are variables that are investigated in the research. Typically, they can be measured in numbers. Independent variables, on the other hand, are factors that may influence the dependent variables positively or negatively.

Racial Hate Crimes

Hate crimes have always been a problem in the USA (Brandl, 2000). The recent events around the world and within the country have sparked unwarranted hostilities between representatives of different races. The research could be dedicated to analyzing racial hate crime rates in a particular location and developing measures to counteract and prevent them.

Dependent variables: Number of racial hate crimes committed in a locality per year, the number of fatalities associated with racial hate crimes, the total population of the locality, racial disparity within the locality.

Independent variables: economic stability of the locality, employment, and unemployment rates, social and law enforcement services, quality, and availability of higher education.

Drug Abuse

Despite the War on Drugs being fought in the US for several decades now, the problem of substance abuse remains a very heated topic (Brandl, 2000). As it stands, the majority of drug-related charges have to do with light drug abuse such as marijuana. It is said that marijuana is a gateway to heavier drugs. The basis for criminal justice research could be a study that compares the numbers of recorded light drug abusers to heavy drug abusers and they’re dynamic.

Dependent variables: number of recorded light drug abusers within a locality, the number of recorded heavy drug abusers within a locality.

Independent variables: economic and social stability of the locality, presence or lack of available medical and social support and rehabilitation facilities, efficiency of the local law enforcement agencies.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence remains among some of the most underreported crimes in the US (Brandl, 2000). One of the main arguments used by the victims of domestic violence for not reporting the assaults against them is that the interference of law enforcement would only make things worse. A study could investigate the matter, to determine the influence of police interference on domestic violence escalation.

Dependent variables: Number of overall domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence fatalities that happened after law enforcement interference.

Independent variables: Other reasons that caused particular domestic violence fatalities. In this scenario, interference of law enforcement is just one of many possible independent variables.

These three problems, outlined above, could make a good basis for substantial criminal justice research. Data about crime rates, the number of reported and solved crimes, and victims narrowed down to every state and locality is readily available in the annual FBI and police reports (“Uniform crime reporting,” 2017). Analyzing the available data and giving answers to the questions listed below would provide a fresh and well-studied perspective with plenty of theoretical and practical value.

References

Brandl, L. (2000). Voices from the field: Readings in criminal justice research. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Criminology and criminal justice research: methods – quantitative research methods.(2016). Web.

Uniform crime reporting. (2017). Web.

History and Impact of Employing Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement

Law enforcement shows how laws are enforced and public order is maintained. White men have been disproportionately holding positions in this field for a long time. Nowadays, the situation is different, and more women and minorities are encouraged to join law enforcement professions to reduce the impact of bureaucracy and other biases. The first women and African Americans were hired as police officers in the middle of the 19th century. In the middle of the 20th century, the Civil Rights Act removed other discrimination-based debates and supported equality in public accommodations. Racial diversification of law enforcement organizations is favored to increase confidence in the police and improve police-minority relations (Sever et al., 2018). Women in law enforcement also promote decreasing in the use of physical force and misunderstandings in communities (Sever et al., 2018). Although men prevail in law enforcement employment, changes and respect cannot be ignored today.

Various Roles of Law Enforcement

Law enforcement is a vital activity of the government to enforce the law and control communities’ behaviors and relationships. The major roles of this profession are to maintain public order and manage public safety. It is expected to see how individuals suspected of criminal offenses are treated and how investigations are organized. The courts aim to ensure that suspected criminals receive fair trials and that their guilt or innocence is properly determined. The correction system, in its turn, focuses on altering behaviors to make people socially acceptable and legally abiding. When an offender is caught by the police (a law enforcement representative), it is necessary to make sure that no unnecessary violence is applied. The courts analyze each detail and conclude that all rights are considered and no mistakes are made. Corrections help people change their behaviors and understand what they should and should not do within the frames of the existing system and society.

Reference

Sever, B., Elg, E., & Ellis, S. (2018). Law enforcement and the depiction of minorities and women on social media: A review of municipal police department Facebook pictures. Race and Justice, 11(2), 127-159. Web.

Lawsuit Tendencies

Civil lawsuits are constantly evolving and are driving new trends to emerge. For decades, filing criminal charges against police officers for excessive use of force has been extremely rare. Even if the defendants were convicted, the jury did not want to find them guilty. However, nowadays, there is a growing trend in the number of lawsuits against the police, and the percentage of successful settlements is also increasing. There are many lawsuits out of court, which causes anxiety to enforcement officials who are afraid of potential cases. Moreover, is a tendency to protect the rights of citizens and to punish any person who subjects to the deprivation of any rights, secured by the Constitution (The United States Code, 1980). Such individual shall be liable notwithstanding his job, but the requirements of a declaratory decree shall be considered.

Tendencies concerning corrections lawsuits and equality among people have also been modified. Analysis of the case law enables one to conclude that although correctional facilities have broad powers, they have the primary duty to ensure equal conditions for people with disabilities. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (2010), physical or mental disabilities should not diminish a person’s right to participate in all aspects of society. Therefore, even in justiciability lawsuits, there is a need to provide exceptional facilities and necessary assistance for everyone who requires it.

Civil liability issues have a direct impact on the criminal justice system. As a result of tendencies toward equal opportunity and protection of the needy, the specifics of justice are reversing. According to the Civil Rights Act (1991), everyone must be responsible for the harm he or she has caused and make restitution. Therefore, justice is the central feature and value of the modern criminal justice system. Civil liability issues and their distinctive features guide modifications in the system, and each new trend necessitates a change in approach.

Civil Lawsuits Transformations

The modern world is constantly evolving, and its improvements impact civil litigation in the United States. The U.S. justice system continues to fulfill its primary mission by adjudicating cases on the merits of conflicts or resolving legal disputes through other established methods. While the primary mission of the court system has remained, some features of dispute resolution are different. Civil lawsuits have transformed over time, and these changes directly affect criminal justice professionals.

It is noteworthy that the period between the 1970s and 1980s was a crisis in the U.S. judicial system. It manifested itself in a multiplication of the number of court appeals, the duration of cases, and the parties’ litigation costs (Horner et al., 2018). Therefore, the need to reform the system, which was not coping with many lawsuits, emerges. Most of the transformations concerned civil cases’ subject matter and complexity, but decision terms were prolonged.

The extensive caseload was the reason for judges to take up civil cases. The concept of geographic uniformity was no longer actively used, and Congress authorized the judiciary to amend and have exclusive authority over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This reform has led to duplication of cases, increasing costs, and delays. The sweeping changes impacted all elements of civil litigation and gave criminal justice professionals a stimulus to be more assertive in their cases. Criminal justice professionals came under pressure for the enormous growth of issues and overhead (Horner et al., 2018). Employees became highly frustrated, making civil litigation even more frustrating and time-consuming.

Civil litigation has been plagued by the many changes that have been necessary because of the crisis of the judicial system. The subjects of lawsuits, the length of the litigation process, its peculiarities, and its size have altered. Despite this, costs and delays are still high, and the system is not functioning completely. Moreover, all of the reforms directly affected criminal justice professionals. Still, they have not been favorable or effective because they have provided little encouragement to undertake meaningful activities.

References

Horner, C., Tenenbaum, E., Sipp, D., & Master, Z. (2018). Can civil lawsuits stem the tide of direct-to-consumer marketing of unproven stem cell interventions. NPJ Regenerative medicine, 3(1), 1-5.

Office of the Law Revision Counsel (1980). United States Code. Web.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2010). Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Web.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Civil Rights Act of 1991. Web.

Crime is any action that contravenes the governing code set by a social, political, or economic authority. In other words, crime is the natural tendency of human beings to deviate from the regulations of any governing institution in pursuit of survival, gain, or advantage (Lombroso et al, 2006). Any individual that is known to have committed a crime is known as a criminal. In this essence, crime can be of many forms. The governing code is then the law of the area of jurisdiction held by the said authority. In the case of a geographical area, the law covers all aspects of life and is supposed to be obeyed by all inhabitants of the territory who are subjects to the law. The criminal justice system is the institution or the criterion that is used to keep all people that are subject to the law in check. In addition, the criminal justice system provides a mechanism through which the deviant subjects are corrected or punished. A fully functional justice system is designed to establish, evaluate, and then met out the appropriate action to correct, punish or restrain the subject in question. The modern criminal justice system is defined in criminal law. This institution is primarily set up to ensure civil order in society. The actions of the criminal justice system in response to a crime committed are governed by the law. Most modern governments have a similar criminal justice system with slight variation due to social norms, religion, or differences in constitutional law.

One of the basic components of a criminal justice system is a body that establishes whether a subject has committed a crime. This body may be a policing institution, a military institution, or a civilian body consisting of members of a certain occupational discipline. Furthermore, the detection and investigation of crime is the responsibility of this body. Once the evidence of the crime having been committed has been gathered, the investigators have to apprehend the suspected criminal. This component of the criminal justice administration is often known as law enforcement.

Administration of justice involves another institution that determines if the law enforcement agency has gathered enough evidence to establish that the apprehended subject committed the crime under investigation (Schmalleger, 2001). Law enforcement has to present the suspected criminal and the evidence before the decision-making body. An accused person may be represented by a defense counsel who is often a solicitor or expert of the law. A criminal court, which is the decision-making body, takes into account the evidence by law enforcement and the argument by the suspected criminal or the defense counsel representing the accused. The court may decide to absolve the accused of having committed any crime or it may convict the suspected criminal. In case the suspect is found innocent, compensation may be awarded by the court if the state is found to have breached regulations governing prosecution. In addition, the court states or defines the action that is to be taken on the convict. The convict may be incarcerated, fined, or sentenced to community service depending on the gravity of the crime. Juvenile offenders and people with disabilities may be sentenced to some kind of probation. However, the court may decide to give law enforcement an extension of time to gather more evidence. Meanwhile, the suspected criminal may be released on bail or incarcerated in remand prison

If the court condemns a convict to serve a prison term, execution, or community service, then the correctional institutions take over. The correctional facility incarcerates the convict and administers procedures intended to correct the behavior of the criminal. The restriction and the limitation of freedom of the convict serve as a punishment and a deterrent from committing future crimes. In addition, the correction institutions carry out execution sentences on convicts condemned to death. Probation institutions intended to correct young offenders may be required to educate, and monitor the progress of the convicts. The administration of criminal justice requires the coordination of various institutions that are part of the government.

References

Lombroso, C., Gibson, M., & Rafter, N. H. (2006). Criminal man. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Schmalleger, F. (2001). Criminal justice today: an introductory text for the twenty-first century (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Introduction

The criminal justice system of our country is one of the most important institutions for preserving the rule of law in our nation. This institution ensures that members of the society obey the law. Those who violate the law are punished by being taken to court where they might be fined or imprisoned. The harshest form of punishment employed by the United State’s criminal justice system is the death sentence. This form of punishment is reserved for the most vicious offenders.

However, there is significant controversy surrounding the issue of the death penalty. While some people regard it as a necessary form of punishment, others view this sentence as unjustifiable. This essay will argue that the death sentence is justified and should therefore be utilized by States all over the country. The paper will support this argument by highlighting the various advantages of the death sentence.

Support for the Death Penalty

A major reason why the death sentence is justified is that it provides the highest deterrence. While most of the punishments given to offenders are meant to serve as retribution and rehabilitate the individual, the most vital role of punishments is to deter future crime. People are encouraged to abstain from criminal activity through the threat of punishments.

A person who is thinking of committing a violent robbery might be dissuaded from this activity when he thinks of the long prison sentence he will be given if he is caught. Law and order in the society are therefore promoted through the deterrence function of punishments. Without a doubt, the death sentence is the ultimate punishment that can be given to a person. This punishment therefore serves as the greatest deterrence to individuals who might not be dissuaded from crime through punishments such as imprisonment.

Muhlhausen asserts that the death penalty saves lives since executions have a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents (par. 14). This assertion is supported by the deterrence theory, which states that the decisions made by an individual concerning crime consider the net costs of the activity. Most people will therefore avoid engaging in crimes that might lead to their being executed.

The death penalty permanently protects the society from vicious criminals. When the death sentence is implemented, the offender’s life is taken and he cannot reenter society. Most of the sentences issued to offenders require them to spend years in prison.

After the completion of the sentence, the offender is free to reenter society and interact with the community. The society is therefore likely to suffer from repeat offenses carried out by the same ex-convict. Opponents of the death sentence argue that dangerous criminals can be kept away from the society through life sentences.

While this is true, life sentences do not guarantee that the offender will never return to society. Parole boards might give the convict his freedom after he has served for decades in the prison. With the death penalty, the offender is condemned to death (Muhlhausen par.3). Once the sentence has been carried out, there is no chance that the individual will harm the society in future. The death penalty therefore offers a permanent solution by ridding the society of the most vicious criminals.

The death sentence ensures that justice is served by giving the offender a punishment that fits their crime. As has been stated in this paper, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes such as murder. Carmical argues that it is morally wrong to simply imprison a person who has been found guilty of murder (par. 6). The moral thing to do in such a case would be to sentence the person to death and execute him.

By passing the death penalty, the judge ensures that retribution is served to the victim of the murder. The family of the victim also receives some peace of mind by knowing that the murderer cannot harm any other person. When the death sentence is not given, the victim’s family is punished. Stambaugh and Gary explain that without a death penalty, the victim’s family has to endure multiple parole hearing requests by the murderer (par. 2).

Each time they do this they are reminded of the crime perpetrated against their loved one. Innocent people are therefore made to endure heartache and repeated traumatization because the offender is alive. In some cases, the victim’s family is forced to keep attending hearings to prevent the offender from being released. All this would be avoided if the death penalty had been imposed against the guilty person.

In spite of the vocal opposition to the death penalty, there is still a lot of public support for this form of punishment. Over the past decade, opinion polls indicate that there has been a rise in the support for the death penalty by Americans (Schmidt par.4). Gallup polls indicated that as of 2011, 61% of Americans supported the death penalty. This support stems from the fact that many Americans feel that there are crimes that deserve this severe punishment.

For them, having the death penalty gives the courts the tools necessary to tackle certain crimes and therefore ensure that justice has been served. While public support does not necessarily mean that the death penalty is justified, it does show that American’s agree that for some criminals, justice can only be served if they are executed.

Opposition to the Death Sentence

Opponents of the death sentence argue that this punishment is too costly and should therefore be abolished. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty is more time-consuming and it requires additional costs making it enormously expensive. Dieter reveals that the state is forced to use the enormous amount of resources on just a few death penalty cases since they have to be thorough (par. 15). The typical capital case will require numerous witnesses on both sides. Both the prosecutor and the defender will use expert witnesses.

The expenses incurred by the State in handling the covered through taxpayers money. Yardley reports that the death sentence wastes taxpayer money as inmates stay on death row for decades with numerous court appearances (par. 4). It is true that the current implementation of the death sentence system in the US is very expensive. However, this should not be used as justification for doing away with a very essential form of punishment.

Schmidt argues that a well designed death penalty law is needed to ensure that the society is protected from injustices (par. 12). It should also be noted that the high cost of the death penalty system arises from the extended stay that death row convicts are offered. If executions were to be carried out in a timely manner, capital punishment would be significantly cheaper than incarceration. This would therefore save the State and by extension the taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

A claim made by opponents of the death penalty is that this is a barbaric form of punishment. The death sentence involves executing the offender as retribution for his crimes. Opponents therefore argue that this form of punishment should not be permitted in a civilized society.

They claim that the death sentence should be abolished from our modern society. Cases where an inmate has suffered from excruciating pain due to errors during the execution are used as justification for this claim. However, Carmical demonstrates that the execution methods used in the US are humane to the offender (par. 9).

The most commonly used method in the last decade has been lethal injection where the condemned person is injected with a lethal concoction of drugs that react to stop the heart. The condemned person is first given an anesthetic, which means that he does not feel any pain when the lethal dose is reacting in his body. Considering the fact that most of the individuals sentenced to death are guilty of brutal crimes such as violent murder, the implementation of the death penalty is humane.

The death sentence might result in the wrongful execution of an innocent person. This fear is not unfounded since the criminal justice system is not perfect and mistakes might be made. Judges and jurors have been known to make wrong decisions leading to the wrongful incarceration of individuals.

DNA technology has shown that there are many innocent people in our prisons. Between 1989 and 2010, DNA testing had led to the exoneration of 250 prisoners who had been wrongfully sentenced (Balko par.5). Of this number, 17 had been on death row awaiting execution. The death sentence therefore presents a risk of killing an innocent person. While this is a valid argument, the risk of wrongful conviction exists in all criminal justice systems.

There have been many cases of innocent people being given prison sentences. However, the US does not have a record of killing an innocent person through court sanctioned executions. Before a person is executed, the court ensures that there is no doubt about his guilt. The convict’s lawyer requests numerous appeals and this ensures that the case is thoroughly assessed. The death penalty can therefore be implemented without risking the lives of innocents.

Conclusion

The society needs the criminal justice system to preserve law and order. The punishments issued by this system are necessary for the protection of our society. This paper has argued that the death penalty is a necessary tool in the list of punishments used by Judges in our courts.

It has shown that the death penalty serves as a form of deterrence, provides justice for the victim and ensures that the society is kept free of dangerous criminals. The paper has also highlighted some of the reasons given by people who feel that the death penalty should be abolished.

This paper has shown that in spite of arguments to the contrary, sentencing offenders to death is morally justifiable and helps to deter crime. It has also demonstrated that the death penalty is not a cruel punishment since care is taken to ensure that the execution is swift and sometimes painless. All development minded citizens should therefore advocate for the death penalty to remain in our criminal justice system.

Works Cited

Balko, Radley. “DNA Testing Reveals Serious Problems in the Capital Punishment System.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2010. Web.

Carmical, Casey. “Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2010. Web.

Dieter, Richard. “Capital Punishment Is Too Expensive to Retain.” Death Penalty Information Center, 2009. Web.

Muhlhausen, David. “The Death Penalty Deters Crime.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2007. Web.

Schmidt, Derek. “The Death Penalty Is Essential, and Its Cost Is Irrelevant.” The Kansas Prosecutor 7 2009. Web.

Stambaugh, Irl, and Gary Stambaugh. “Death Penalty Would End Punishment of Victim’s Family.” Anchorage Daily News, 7 Mar. 2009. Web.

Yardley, William. “Oregon Governor Says He Will Block Executions.” The New York Times. 23. Nov. 2011. Web. <https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/oregon-executions-to-be-blocked-by-gov-kitzhaber.html>.

Introduction

Tom Randell, a college senior, hosted a Halloween party in California, where alcohol was deliberately served to people under 21 and this is a crime as per legal drinking age mentioned by the justice system of the state. However, Kelly Greene, a junior student of 18 consumed high amounts of alcohol at the party and was continuously encouraged to drink more by Tom Randell as per witnesses like William Doyle who actually stated in the witness for prosecution that Tom Randell actually ‘pressured’ Ms. Greene to drink more. On her way back she, in her intoxicated self at 12:15 am, overran two fellow students, Melissa Anderson and Edward Montgomery. The former was killed instantly and the latter suffered severe injury. The case against Kelly Greene is vehicle manslaughter and driving under the influence of intoxication. The case against Tom Randell is more serious, it is involuntary manslaughter.

Enthymeme

It was found that in some of the early self-report studies, like Noyers and Yun, conduct that is illegal acts were as common in teens as in adults. Under such conditions it is only logical to consider the criminal justice system as a homogeneous authority that would not discriminate between an adult and a teenager as a juvenile and treat them only on the basis of the crime committed. In this case, one of the guilty parties Kelly Greene is minor at 18 years and the other is Tom Randell, 21. Thus, Ms. Greene should be equally convicted along with Tom Randell. However, in the case of Tom Randell it is clear that being an adult it was his duty to stop Ms. Green from consuming alcohol but he not only insister her in taking more intoxication but he actually forced her to a situation of disaster, which, according to prosecution witness Helen Brooks, was waiting to happen.

However, in accordance with the Conservative tendency of the criminal justice system it is believed that the criminal activities are acts by the citizens themselves. It assumes that the street crimes, like assault, robbery, rape or murder, that are committed are actually the deed by the members of the society and in order to prevent these criminal activities it is essential for the citizens to understand the goodness of being a good citizen and a citizen must avoid situations that could potentially result in trouble, like taking a walk in the park in the middle of the night. (Karmen, 75) The advantage of this theory is that it includes all the members of the society and thus it regards all the population can be regarded as potential victims of criminals. This makes it possible for the criminal justice system to include all members of the society under suspicion. As the criminal is part of the society, it is impossible to leave out the criminal so a citizen should always be ready for any potential criminal activity. The greatest disadvantage of this tendency is that it is applicable for crimes that are regarded as street crimes. It cannot be applied to white collar crimes where only a section of the society is generally involved. Thus, it can be stated that the two students, Melissa Anderson and Edward Montgomery, should not have taken a walk at 12:15 am. That is definitely not a time to stay out.

But from the general point of view of the criminal justice system the main culprits were Tom Randell and Kelly Greene and it is obvious that they should be charged and prosecuted in the eyes of law. It is true that Kelly Greene was directly responsible for the accident but she is not an adult and she was insisted and forced into taking intoxication. On the other hand, Tom Randell is the chief criminal even though he was not present in the scene of accident as he deliberately put Greene in a situation that would ultimately cause an accident. In the case of Tom Randell cannot be charged in the context of first degree murder because he was not directly involved in the death caused by the accident. However, it is undeniable that he is the main reason, though involuntary, behind the accident. In any case, Tom Randell is guilty of providing intoxication to minors and forcing drink. Thus, there is every legal option to prove Tom Randell guilty and the criminal justice procedure should be carried out accordingly.

Conclusion

Justice can be late but not unjust. But it should be remembered that there are so many proceedings involved in the whole process that there is always an outside chance that these long drawn activities and specification of technical judgments could ultimately lead to improper results. Though there is a common perception about the legal system that a ‘judgment delayed is a justice denied.’ But it cannot be overlooked that there are a number of variables involved within the proper implementation of the system. So, Tom Randell should be sentenced to seven year in prison and Kelly Greene should be sentenced to 1 year in prison.

Work cited

Karmen, Alice. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2007.

Criminology is one of the most significant criminal justice fields characterized as an interdisciplinary field founded on the principles of sociology, psychology, politics, statistics, and economics. Criminologists’ activities include collecting and analyzing data of committed crimes to study the nature of crimes and criminals and identify factors that influence criminals’ motives. Through exploring criminals’ backgrounds and crime data, criminologists find patterns and determine common traits and behavior of criminals, common causes of crimes and criminals’ motivations. The essential role of criminologists in criminal justice has a preventative character. The studies conducted by criminologists aim to reduce crimes by identifying and eliminating factors that influence the human tendency to commit a crime. Therefore, the role of criminologists in the justice field is important as it presents knowledge about criminals’ motivation and effective punishment methods that could be used to correct criminals’ deviant behavior.

Additionally, as there are many examples of criminal behavior, there are dozens of different criminological theories and paradigms. According to Coomber et al. (2019), most criminology theories are focused on street crime. In addition to street crimes being a part of urban life that presents a significant threat to public safety, street crime rates are influenced by the street environment. For example, the research conducted by Zeng et al. (2021) determined that street environmental factors such as the frequency of street use and the presence of escape paths significantly affect the number of robberies. Thus, besides analyzing the criminals’ background, criminologists also explore other factors influencing crime rates.

Furthermore, more accurate criminology research results could be achieved by carefully choosing the correct method for crime data analysis. In general, effective research methods used in criminology are case studies, clinical studies, and statistical data analysis. Case studies focus on individual crime or several similar crimes to compare the data and extract valuable information. Case studies are very effective as a method of criminology research, as they provide the most accurate information; however, case studies are expensive and require significant resources. On the other hand, the clinical method is effective when criminals express mental health disorders; the data is collected through an interview with a psychologist. Next, the information from research conducted through analysis of statistical data of crimes as a mass phenomenon could effectively be used by the government to protect the population.

There are many other common methods in criminology that are less effective or accurate. One of them is the comparative method that focuses on exploring the connections between two objects. For example, the research on the connection between the number of undocumented immigrants and immigrant crimes conducted by Adelman et al. (2021) determined that, on average, immigration has no impact on the crime rate. Therefore, even though the comparison method is commonly used in criminology, the results of its use could have little significant information and present no potential for effective protection of the population.

Furthermore, many important details and valuable information are missing due to the high number of unreported crimes. For example, in examining the citizen responses to the sound of gunfire, Huebner et al. (2020) determined that in communities prevailed by Black residents, there is a lower chance that the residents will call 911. Therefore, accurately measuring crime data is essential to providing valuable information about the current situation with criminal activity and its trends. Moreover, criminal justice system reports and subsequent reforms are based on the available crime data. The possible case in which crime rates are inaccurately measured presents a threat to the population’s safety and reduced policies quality.

References

Adelman, R. M., Yang, Y., Williams Reid, L., Bachmeier, J. D., & Maciag, M. (2021). Using estimates of undocumented immigrants to study the immigration-crime relationship.Journal of Crime and Justice, 44(4), 375-400. Web.

Coomber, R., Donnermeyer, J., McElrath, K., & Scott, J. (2019). Key concepts in crime and society [eBook, Enhanced Credo edition]. SAGE.

Huebner, B. M., Lentz, T. S., & Schafer, J. A. (2020). Heard shots – call the police? An examination of citizen responses to gunfire.Justice Quarterly, 1-24. Web.

Zeng, M., Mao, Y., & Wang, C. (2021). The relationship between street environment and street crime: A case study of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, China.Cities, 112, 1-11. Web.

In measuring crime, different communities rely on various procedures and ethical principles. Whereas there are many statistical sources for a researcher who would wish to gather information on crime, nonetheless, in collecting this form of data, it is important that the researcher carefully considers the following factors before and during the processes of using data from secondary sources. To start with, the issue of specificity is very crucial. In this case, there is the need to ensure that the specifics of the statistics are very clear from the start. This is because many of the crime reports often carry complex information that may take time to analyze.

It is also common for inexperienced people to go through large volumes of data only to realize that it is of little on no value to them. Similarly, the researcher should clearly know which crimes or aspects of crime require statistics for purposes of clarity. This clarity is important in planning on how to collect the needed statistics and the way they will be used. It is important for a researcher to know the necessary sources for collecting information. For example, if the information needed is to be used for policy formulation or advocacy, the researchers should rely more on statistics and reports from government agencies or private sources that are widely known for their good reputation.

After making the above considerations, the researcher should proceed to establish the integrity of the data sources. This ensures that the data is from credible sources and that the collected information is neither distorted nor misleading. Data integrity is very important in any research undertaking. This is particularly important considering that there are many reports and statistics on crime available on the internet. Secondary sources of crime statistics include crime statistics by state, data from the bureau of justice, international crime statistics, and data from the crime mapping centers, amongst others.

In addition to the above, time is another important consideration. It is known that the government and private agencies usually employ the use of close statistics to measure crime have been collected by both government and private agencies for a long time. It would therefore be important for the researcher to use relevant data sources that reflect s appropriately on the contemporary situation with regard to crime. The researcher should not rely on data that is too old for such statistics would not be accurate in planning for interventions.

Finally, the researcher needs to be aware that official crime statistics have their own advantages and limitations as well. By using published statistics, the researchers can be able to make savings on time and money. Many of the sources are easy to access compared to data generated through recent research. Since they are easily available, statistics from secondary make it easy to verify previous research findings. On the other hand, there are various disadvantages associated with the use of secondary sources of crime statistics. There is a high likelihood for secondary data to be biased. This automatically impacts negatively on the integrity of the data. At times, some secondary sources are not well maintained, and researchers are likely to experience difficulties in retrieving crucial data. This is especially the case if some parts of the source are worn out, torn out, or wholly missing. The use of secondary data often tempts people to work in haste; this makes them susceptible to making mistakes by not carefully exploring all the necessary facts.