Sheriff Arpaio’s Tent City solution to prison overcrowding should not be replicated. A relatively uncommon establishment in the US criminal justice system had numerous underlying contradictions due to the uniqueness of the concept. As a facility that housed inmates outdoors in post-war tents, it did not separate the prisoners to eliminate personal contacts, which is required by a high-security system (Lockdown: Tent City, 2007). It might be assumed, therefore, that the prison had minimum security; however, the guards were heavily armored and conducted regular raids to control the contraband, which is a characteristic of a high-security prison. As seen from the inconsistencies in security, continuous criminal activity, a possibility of riots, and numerous human rights violations, Tent City cannot be considered a viable alternative to regular prison facilities. Thus, the practice of Tent City should be abolished as an ineffective approach to solving the prison system’s space limitations.
Although Sheriff Arpaio’s Tent City was banned in 2017 as an inhumane establishment that violated the human rights of the prisoners, the identical facility continued to operate in Arizona State Prison, Florence. It hosted up to 500 prisoners in an outdoor area similar to the initial concept of Sheriff Arpaio. Kenski (2018) reported that the temperature in the tents’ shade reached 107 degrees, which is unsuitable for inmates, especially those who are prescribed antipsychotic medications. Security and criminal activity issues arose within the system, which indicated its ineffectiveness. However, as per the facility’s benefits, it solved the overcrowding issue and housed inmates that otherwise would not be provided adequate space in regular jails. As a result, this approach is also deemed cost-effective. If I were a Chief of the facility, I would implement a long-term solution like split-sentencing or discuss community-based punishment of non-violent inmates, which is an approach that identifies less dangerous prisoners and allows them to return to society quicker than more dangerous criminals.
Is More Privatization of Prisons Needed?
Private prisons are a relatively new development that has benefits and risks from a managerial point of view. Firstly, as it concerns the advantages, from the business side, this endeavor is highly cost-effective and profitable. Private prisons are reported to provide better correctional and rehabilitation opportunities for the inmates, which will contribute to overall safety and decrease the number of convicts resuming their criminal activity. “Privatization has shown that it can provide high quality and the development of new prisons on a very cost-effective basis, quickly and very professionally” (The War on Drugs, 1999, p. 15). The possible downfalls, however, include a possibility of decreased demand for private establishments (Kaeble & Glaze, 2016). Furthermore, increased violence in private prison facilities linked to a lack of trained staff and vague legislative policies can pose risks.
The obstacles that one will face during this venture are legislative and administrative difficulties. Government agency representatives should be involved in the administration since “without some direct management by federal employees, agencies face the risk of being unable to adequately oversee and control private prison operations” (Gonzalez, 2018, p. 389). This requirement, along with a vague legislative framework and the need to share data with the government, might be challenging to implement. Additionally, training the staff to address and maintain the security needs of the establishment adequately is going to be not only costly but also time and effort-demanding. On the other hand, as government prisons still report overcrowding and a decrease in the quality of living, a facility with higher standards will meet the newly emerging market demand.
References
Films Media Group. (1999). The War on Drugs [Video Transcript].
Films Media Group. (2007). Lockdown: Tent City [Video Transcript].
Gonzalez, M. (2018). Information Asymmetry in Private Prison Management: Monitoring and Oversight as the Basis for Private Prison Legitimacy. Public Contract Law Journal, 47(3), 377–398.
Kaeble, D., & Glaze, L. E. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Web.
Kenski, K. (2018). Right of center with potential to change. In D. A. Schultz (Ed.), Presidential Swing States (pp. 307-318). Rowman and Littlefield Publishing.
The human civilization has from ancient times acknowledged the fact that the children are the future of the present civilization. Our modern era also believes in this ideology. This being the case, our society has always strived to ensure that children and the youth are given the best opportunity to excel.
However, despite all the good intention of the society, there are still a number of children and youth who continue to be on the wrong side of the law. Cole and Smith note that this increase in juvenile deliquescence is as a result of social, economic and other factors prevalent in this era (13). Policy makes have taken care to ensure that these troubled children are not left behind in the quest for a brighter future for all the children.
Measures have been taken to ensure that the troubled children who are charged with offences are afforded a chance to rectify their mistakes and become respectable citizens through rehabilitation programs. This has been through the implementation of juvenile justice systems which have been characterized by their correctional as opposed to punishment role.
Despite the presence of a functional juvenile justice system in the country, there has been a marked increase in crime rates among children and youths. As a result of this rising rates of crime amongst youths, policy makers have pushed for the increased transfer of juvenile offenders to criminal courts for adult prosecution. This is a move that is hailed by some as being the best manner to reduce juvenile crimes and therefore safeguard the society’s peace.
However, there are opponents to these waivers who suggest that such moves result in the reduction in chances of rehabilitation for the juvenile offenders. This paper argues that juveniles should not be waived to adult courts unless they commit heinous crimes such as murder.
To reinforce this assertion, this study will perform a critical analysis of the various arguments presented both for and against transferring juveniles to adult courts. A brief overview of the juvenile court system will also be offered to act as a background for the paper.
Juvenile justice system
The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century led to a mushrooming of urban settlements and the number of children living in cities rapidly increased (Sims and Preston 46). Juvenile delinquency became an issue in many cities and the welfare of the urban children became a primary concern. The introduction of a separate system of justice for children borrowed heavily from the ideas proposed by the 18th Century English lawyer, William Blackstone (Yeckel 331).
Blackstone aimed at categorizing people based on their ages and thus drawing a line between the age where one could be held accountable for their actions and an age where one was absolved from any crime committed. To a large extent, the earlier advocates of juvenile systems considered themselves to be on a humanitarian mission championing the rights of the children.
The major difference between the juvenile justice system and the criminal justice system was that juvenile courts aimed to rehabilitate rather than punish. Core to the courts principles was the mission to help troubled children. This benevolent nature of the system led to an informal and non adversarial approach that was not entangled in the procedural rules and formalities that characterized the criminal court systems.
Sim and Preston assert that this open nature was all in line with the ultimate goal of the courts which was to guide the young offender towards life as a responsible and law-abiding adult (48). The lack of well defined procedures meant that the juvenile court could take extra-legal factors in deciding on how to handle a case.
The primary argument by the proponents of automatic judicial waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction is as a result of the increased juvenile crime and violence. While it is true that juvenile crimes are markedly higher that they were in the previous decades, the same can be said about adult crimes.
Allard and Young assert that there is no evidence that young people have become disproportionately more crime prone or dangerous at that than the rest of the population (8). Arguably, the alleged increase in juvenile crime is simply a function of population growth which is not only natural but to be expected. Allard and Young go on to demonstrate that the juvenile arrests for serious violent crimes have remained fairly average over the last 30 years (7).
The underlying philosophy behind transferring juveniles to the criminal justice system is that more severe punishment even if at the expense of rehabilitation will result in reduced crime rates and therefore increase the public safety. However, studies indicate that juvenile offenders in the adult system are more likely to re-offend or commit more serious subsequent offenses than those who remain in the juvenile system (Allard & Young 4).
Youths and young offenders should not be prosecuted through the criminal justice system unless they commit major crimes such as murder. Instead they should be prosecuted through the juvenile justice system.
This is attributed to the fact that juvenile courts are predisposed to have the best interest of the children or youths in consideration and offer some form of defense and rehabilitation for the children in juvenile facilities. As such, the underlying goal of the juvenile system is to guide the young offender towards life as a responsible and law-abiding adult (Sim and Preston 56).
The arguments on juveniles raised by policy markers in the late 1800s resulted in a consensus that juveniles were developmentally inferior compared to adults and as such, juveniles would no longer be held criminally responsible for their actions (Feld 19; Bakken 14).
However, while this attribute of benevolence is hailed by many proponents of the juvenile system, these benign actions have resulted in the lack of accountability for their actions by the youths. Waivers can offset this condition since as Feld comments:
The rehabilitative ideal has minimized the significance of the offenses as a dispositional criterion. The emphasis on the “best interests of the child” has weakened the connection between what a person does and the consequences of that act on the theory that the act is at best only symptomatic of real needs. (Bakken 13).
This argument suggests that the treatment of youths in the juvenile system does not lead to the offender feeling accountable for his/her crimes therefore resulting in a lack of liability. This is as opposed to the adult system in which one is held accountable for their crimes and made to pay for them to the maximum extent permissible by the law.
In addition, proponents of the waiver to prosecute the youth in the criminal justice system assert that one of the goals for transferring juvenile offenders to the adult criminal courts is to deter them from taking part in criminal activities in future.
However, a research carried out by Donna Bishop in 1996 to highlight the differences in outcomes of juvenile courts compared to the criminal courts on youths showed that juvenile offenders who were transferred to the adult courts received more severe sentences than their counterparts in the juvenile system. In addition to this, the findings showed that the transferred youth had higher re-arrest rates (54%) compared with 32% for the youths dealt with by the juvenile courts ( Rosenheim 87).
In light of such findings, advocates of the juvenile court systems argue that the taking up of waiving as a means to reduce future crimes is a faulty policy. While the juvenile system may not be flawless, these findings demonstrate that the system has not altogether failed and should therefore be experimented with further.
To further reinforce this argument, Watt, Howells and Delfabbro use Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory to explain why individuals commit crimes (150). In this theory, Freud believes that all humans have underlying desires. As such, it is only through socialization that these urges can be controlled. Therefore, a person with poor social skills develops a personality disorder which forces him/her to exhibit antisocial tendencies.
Those that bring out these tendencies become criminals while those who suppress them become neurotics. This theory is therefore a proponent to the fact that criminals are social misfits trying to compensate for their weaknesses. Bearing this in mind, taking young offenders through the criminal justice system does not help them change but instead, makes them more antisocial thereby increasing their chances of committing more serious offences.
As Fisher reiterates, the acts of violence exhibited by youths and young offenders are triggered by their need to empower themselves in a society that constantly undermines them (109). Therefore, the solution should not be prosecuting them but rather, to find solutions to factors that lead them into committing crime.
To further support his argument as a proponent of youth prosecutions in the criminal justice system, Bakken states that juveniles are capable of hideous crimes as was demonstrated in the Kent v. United States case. A 16 year old, Morris A. Kent was charged with breaking into a woman’s apartment, robbing her and raping her (6).
The juvenile court system is evidently not equipped to deal with such kind of violent crimes as its sentencing does not include life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Bakken acknowledges that it is cases such as this that make juvenile transfer not only desirable but necessary so as to enable the offender to be tried on criminal charges (7).
The waiving system presents a mode through which these malicious offenders can be kept away from the society therefore preserving social harmony. Without waivers, crimes such as those committed by Kent would only be punished marginally and the offender would be free to rejoin the society after only a few years of incarceration.
However, Watt, Howells and Delfabbro disagree with this argument by using the interactionist theory of crime causation which asserts that an individual’s interaction with criminals may psychologically influence him/her to commit crime (147).
The theory proposes that the chances of an individual committing crime as a result of peer pressure are significantly high. According to Fisher, constant interactions with criminals play a central role in the development of criminal behaviors (105). The author states that from these associations, individuals are influenced into committing crime and becoming notorious criminals.
This theory proposes that a petty offender can become a hardcore criminal through the association with criminals. It assumes that from such interactions, an individual learns how to think, act and react to different situations like a criminal. As such, imprisoning young offenders may invariably make them worse than they were before getting into the system.
To this regard, Watt Howells & Delfabbro propose a more positive approach whereby young petty offenders are enrolled in the juvenile justice system where there are positive reinforcement programs that may help them change their behaviors (143). However, Gaines and Miller argue that criminal convictions carry with them a certain stigma as a person is marked as a felon for the rest of their lives (62).
The authors suggest that this “stigmatization” by the society is in fact healthy as it also adds to the deterrence factor since people do not want to be viewed as social misfits. The juvenile court system is structured in such a way that these long-term consequences to the offender are not present.
In as much as this statement holds true, adult conviction also results in some socioeconomic consequences such as the person being compelled to report their conviction on job application or being barred from particular types of jobs. These factors have serious psychological effects on an individual.
For example, no matter how much an individual is trying to change his/her ways, the criminal records and the social limitations associated with them will never go away. As such, these realities often foster feelings of frustration and other antisocial tendencies.
These are key factors that may lead an individual into causing crime as a means of acting-out. These bleak realities further support the statement that youth offenders should not be go through the criminal justice system and that other alternatives should be found.
The rationale behind the establishment of the juvenile system was to protect the interests of the children who were deemed as being less liable than adults since they were morally and emotionally less developed (Rosenheim 91). This almost paternal view is the main difference between juvenile courts and criminal courts whereby the juvenile courts emphasis on the “best interests” of the violators.
By indiscriminately waiving juvenile offenders to the adult court system, the criminal justice system will have failed in its initial goal which was to protect the interest of young offenders and hopefully rehabilitate them into useful members of the society.
However, it can be argued that the juvenile system was established in an era when the capability and emotional intelligence of the youth developed at a fairly slower pace. In the modern era, children are exposed to all kinds of information which result in greater understanding. As such, the laws should be amended to accommodate these new realities.
Conclusion
This study set out to argue that juveniles should not be waived to adult courts. To underscore this point, the paper has performed a brief overview of the juvenile system in America as well as an in-depth analysis of the arguments forwarded both for and against waivers.
However, this paper has clearly demonstrated that there are other means through with juvenile criminality can be tackled. Considering the risk that waivers could results in the conversion of juvenile offenders into hardcore criminals, the evidence in this paper suggests that more intervention-based measures should be implemented to ensure that young offenders do not get into the criminal justice system unless they commit heinous crimes.
Works Cited
Allard, Patricia and Malcolm Young. Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: Perspectives for Policymakers and Practitioners, 2002. Web.
Bakken, Nicholas. (2007). You do the Crime, You do the Time: A Socio-Legal History of the Juvenile Court and Transfer Waivers, 2002. Web.
Burrow, John. (2005). Punishing Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Case Study of Michigan’s Prosecutorial Waiver Status, 2002. Web.
Cole, George and Cristopher Smith. The American System of Criminal Justice. New York : Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.
Gaines, Larry and Roger Miller. Criminal Justice in Action. New York: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.
Rosenheim, Margaret. A Century of Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Print.
Sims, Barbara and Pamela Preston. Handbook of Juvenile Justice: Theory and Practice. California: CRC Press, 2006. Print.
Watt, Bruce, Kevin Howells and Paul Delfabbro. (2004). “Juvenile Recidivism: Criminal Propensity, Social Control and Social Learning Theories.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 11.1 (2004): 141 – 153. Print.
Yeckel, Josef. “Violent Juvenile Offenders: Rethinking Federal Intervention in Juvenile Justice.” Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 51 (1997): 331. Print.
Criminal law, which is also known as penal law, refers to the organization of regulations and Acts listing the offences not in favor of the public at large. It governs how suspects are interrogated, incriminated, and punished. The law also presents the penalties for criminal lawbreakers. The phrase ‘criminal law’ covers all that is engrossed in the administration of fairness. Crimes can be classified into felonies and misdemeanors depending on the seriousness of the offence committed. Felonies comprise serious crimes carrying a jail term of more than one year while misdemeanor crimes are less serious, and thus they are punishable with a jail term not exceeding one year.
The major federal legislative acts governing public-sector employment.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) has put in place numerous laws governing the employment of people in the US. There are about 180 federal laws that spell out the terms of employment terms for the over 10 million employers and 125 million employees in the public sector (Rothstein & Liebman, 2011).
Wages & Hours
The remuneration for employees is spelt out in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The act defines the standard wages payable to employees. In addition, the Act also defines the overtime pay for extra time worked. The Act has set the “minimum pay for employees and the overtime pay has to be between 22 to 25% of the standard pay” (Rothstein & Liebman, 2011). The act also stipulates the working hours for both adults and children less than 16 years of age. The act further prohibits the employment of children below the age of 18 years in certain sectors that are classified as being too dangerous.
Workplace Safety & Health
The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act defines the safety conditions in the working place (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Under the Act, every employee is obliged to provide his/her workers with a working environment that is free from recognizable hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the provisions of the OSH Act are observed by every employer. OSHA conducts regular appraisals to assess employers’ compliance with the requirements of the Act.
Employee Benefit Security
Employees’ retirement benefits are regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Act groups employees into certain categories and each class of employers is required to contribute some amount of money to a pension scheme for the employees’ benefits.
The Family and Medical Leave Act
Employers with more than 50 employees are obliged by The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to give their employees a 12 weeks unpaid leave (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The leave is only given to qualified employees during birth or adoption of a kid.
The personal loyalty syndrome and how it can be problematic in the criminal justice workplace
Individuals working in the criminal justice agencies, at times, exercise some degree of personal loyalty syndrome. The personal loyalty syndrome is noticeable when certain persons give an unnecessary quantity of personal loyalty to their seniors (Souryal & Diamond, 2001). In some cases, the reasonable acceptable degree that should be accorded to such a supervisor is exceeded. In such cases, such personal loyalty is not documented in the Standard Operating Procedures or internal rules.
However, criminal justice employees are regularly reminded that matters of loyalty at the place of work are significant and that an individual cannot endure devoid of personal loyalty to supervisors. Supporters of such loyalty argue that it contributes to team spirit and organizational loyalty. Criminal justice personnel experiences personal loyalty syndrome although there is no provision in the criminal law supporting personal loyalty to superiors.
The personal loyalty syndrome frequently coerces persons to proffer personal loyalty to undeserving superiors, thus resulting into violation of the constitution. Personal loyalty is also known to result in communication barriers between the supervisors and their subordinates. Some supervisors implement whatever they erudite regarding loyalty and they tend to recognize the importance of maintaining the same in the workplace, thus forgetting that loyalty ought to be accorded to the institution and not to individuals. For an organization to maintain a good rapport amongst its stakeholders there should be reliable communication channel on top of transparency.
The various sources of power within the criminal justice organization and how the federal legislation help or hinder the exercise of this power
Search warrants
This order issued by a court with criminal jurisdiction upon application by a security officer or a public servant in the course of dispensing one’s mandate directing security officers to conduct a search on a premise, an individual, or property and surrender the property so seized to the same court that issued the order (Burke, 2001). Private assets are liable to convulsion pursuant to a search warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suppose that it is wrongfully acquired or stolen, or it is acquired for the sole intention of being applied to obligate or cover the commission of an offense against the rules of a state or any other state.
However, “if such offense was against the laws of another state, the court shall only issue a warrant if the conduct comprising such offense would, if occurring in the state in question, constitute a felony against the laws of the state” (Burke, 2001, p. 93).
Search Warrant Requirements
The law protects any person from unfair searches and arrests. This assertion implies that certain requirements have to be met for a search to be valid. Searches are usually deemed valid only if a magistrate or a judge grants an investigation warrant founded on feasible grounds or on the occurrence of specified circumstances that validate a search devoid of a warrant. However, the aforementioned rule does not protect persons without legitimate expectation of privacy in the property in question, and thus the security officers who conduct searches under such circumstances are not bound by the above rule. In addition, this law only applies to public servants acting on behalf of the government, and thus if an individual carries out a personal search on another person or his/her property, the evidence acquired is acceptable in a court of law.
Exemptions to search requirements
Listed below are some of the exemptions to the search requirements:
There is no warrant required to be issued for searches incidental to genuine arrests, and thus if someone is lawfully arrested by the security agents and a search is conducted on him/her or the area around him/her that is within reach, the search is lawful as it was incidental to a search on a wrongful act. Any abstract acquired on the search is tolerable in a court of law.
Seizure of evidence is plain view or evidence, which is exposed to the public and not hidden, is lawful and it does not require a warrant to be issued as long as the officer in question is lawfully in the site where the evidence is located. This aspect extends to an officer who visits the premises for the sole purpose of serving a duly signed warrant.
The law does not also apply to instances where permission to access the premises of a person has been given. If sanction is granted by someone convincingly assumed by a police officer to have power to confer such permission, no warrant is needed for an investigation or convulsion. However, the person granting such permission must be of sound mind and not a minor.
Since motor vehicles are evidently highly movable, “a warrant is not needed to search automobiles if the security officers have feasible reason to judge that the vehicle holds indication of a transgression” (Duff, Farmer, Marshall, Renzo & Tadros, 2010, p. 121).
This rule applies not only to vehicles, but also to “other motor-driven carriers including motor boats with the rationality in this exemption being that a warrant takes time to obtain and the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant is issued and executed” (Duff et al., 2010, p. 121).). Police are authorized by the law to stop any person they suspect of a criminal offence if they have reasonable grounds to connect that person to the criminal act. The evidence needed for reasonable misgiving here is anything above simple doubt. If there is cause to suppose that someone may be carrying weapons or illegal drugs, the security officers can also search the person without the need of a warranty.
Definition of slippery slope and how it can lead to further problems in the administration of a criminal justice agency
Slippery slope refers to the assumption that the occurrence of a particular event will automatically lead to a series of other related events (Rizzo & Whitman, 2003). In other words, slippery slope is based on the argument that the occurrence of a particular event stimulates the occurrence of other similar events. The concept of slippery slope argument is that a particular rule or decision is likely to result in uncalled consequences.
Police brutality due to slippery slope
Police are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding citizens and dealing with crime. In performing these duties, they are authorized to use the legitimized force within certain limits. The precepts of ‘reasonable force’ depend on the given circumstances. The amount of force that a police is entitled to use depends on the situation and it varies greatly from one situation another. However, law enforcers have abused this privilege due to lack of clear laws on the amount of force that an officer is entitled to use in a given situation. Some officers have resulted in using excessive force even under unnecessary circumstances.
Excessive force may take the form of physical assault, sexual assault, verbal abuse, or use of lethal force when dealing with suspects or the public at large. Police brutality is a contemporary worldwide issue as cases of savagery continue to arise despite the numerous laws governing the conduct of the police, which bars them from assaulting the public.
Conclusion
Criminal law denotes a set of laws and rules that govern the interaction between an individual and the public. For a wrong to be termed as a crime, it must have been defined as such by an existing law or an Act. All bills defining criminal acts can be classified into their diverse components. The majority of criminal offences are twofold, viz. they consist an act and a mental state. This aspect implies that prosecutors must provide adequate evidence to support each of these two aspects of the offense to capitulate a conviction.
References
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39-55.
Burke, H. (2001). An Introduction to Criminological Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S., Renzo, M., & Tadros, V. (2010). The boundaries of the criminal law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rizzo, M., & Whitman, G. (2003). The Camel’s Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories and Slippery Slopes. UCLA Law Review, 51(2), 539–592.
Rothstein, M., & Liebman, L. (2011). Employment Law Cases and Materials. Eagan, MN: Foundation Press.
Souryal, S., & Diamond, D. (2001). The rhetoric of personal loyalty to superiors in criminal justice agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(6), 543-554.
Criminal justice is the system that combines “three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment” (FindLaw, 2013). Mainly, people find themselves involved in this system because a crime was committed. The representatives of the general public got used to the fact that one party is to be punished, and another one is to provide punishment. They believe that such approach is decent because it reveals what the criminals deserve.
Punishment is advantageous for the society because it can prevent the commitment of further crimes maintained by both the same person and other people. Its implementation can protect the members of world’s population from being involved in various affairs with dangerous and dishonest individuals. Finally, punishment can serve as a proof and a guide for the general public that reveals how they should act, what laws follow, and why. Its decree occurs in the form of sentencing, which explains how a criminal will be punished and for what (Zedner, 2004). Both punishment and sentencing are connected with the law.
They reveal what can happen to a person if one commits crimes. There are different peculiarities of punishment and sentencing that provide the court with the opportunity to choose those that are the most appropriate for the particular population. Still, before implementing them, professionals are to gather enough authoritative evidence that will relate to the case and prevent the occurrence of inconsistencies based on disparity and discrimination.
Connection between Punishment and Sentencing
Sentencing can be treated as a set of rules, according to which the offender is punished. Punishment, in its case, tends to connect conducted crimes and sanctions that are used in the court. The first thing this system should address deals with the type of sanction selected and aspects that made that relate to the crime. Punishment, in its way, focuses on the justification of crimes according to the law. In this way, punishment and sentencing are connected with each other.
Taking everything mentioned into consideration, it can be claimed that punishment and sentencing are connected to each other. When being in the court, the judge and the jury discuss some case and develop a sentence; they mainly state how much time an offender should spend maintaining one’s punishment. Even though one is not willing to do so, the criminal has no other opportunity but to obey, as it was required because of the law violation and issues with the probation. Still, there is a possibility that judge will give a sentence, having no relevant punishment. For example, if it is proved that the person did nothing wrong, one may be free to return home. Still, some individuals are found guilty; the punishment will also be declared.
Concept of Punishment
The law exists, and the representatives of the general public are expected to follow it. Its absence and lack of particular rules would mean that people are free to do everything they want. In this way, crimes occur because the law is violated. When such cases are entailed by appropriate evidence, punishment is provided. It starts with the expression of one’s disapproval regarding the actions that violated the law and is lately entailed by sanction.
As a rule, punishment is provided by the representative of the state’s power, but it can also be delivered by a private corporation. Such intervention is justified by the advantages it provides to the society, which includes discouraging people from conducting inappropriate actions, making individuals realize that they are responsible for the things they do, protect the general public from criminals, and communicate shared values and boundaries (Roberts & Hough, 2002).
Concept of Sentencing
Sentencing is tightly connected to the punishment, as it identifies the way the punishment will look like in a particular case. It can be treated as a declaration of how the representatives of the general public react to crimes and those who committed them (Findlay, Odgers, & Yeo, 2005). A person is sentenced for almost the same purposes one receives punishment. The court is to make sure that one will receive appropriate punishment for indecent actions, other crimes can be prevented and the community protected (Bottoms & Robinson, 2004).
Except for that, an individual receives a chance to rehabilitate. A person can be sentenced when one admits his/her guilt, or it is proved by the court (the trial by the judge alone or the hearing with the jury). Local, District, and Supreme Courts can be approached. The hearing that deals with sentencing is held apart from the one that was focused on the punishment. In the framework of one and the same case, the offender may face different sentences because they are not universal or divided according to strict rules. In fact, there is no correct outcome that can be reached in the court. Sentencing has several functions.
The symbolic one of sentencing deals with the ensuring that citizens can differentiate positive and negative as well as normal and criminal behaviors. Instrumental one is more practical, as it is focused on the reaffirmation of the fact that criminals are found guilty of their crimes and are punished for them.
Purposes of Punishment
In general, punishment is implemented to make the offenders take responsibility for the things they have done. Still, when considering this aspect in detailed, such four main purposes can be identified:
Deterrence:
specific – deals with the desire to control one’s actions and prevent the commitment of future crimes.
general – punish one individual for the particular action to make others see that it is wrong and that it will entail serious and unpleasant outcomes.
Retribution: deals with the assessment of the situation and desire to find out whether the crime was morally right. The nature of the crime is discussed in this way. In this framework, it is critical for the suspect to get even (Girma & Feleke, 2013).
Rehabilitation: is focused on the attempt to influence the suspect and make one reform to prevent possible occurrence of similar cases with the course of time.
Incapacitation: puts the focus on the restriction of offender’s freedom. One can be put on home detention so that the necessity to change the residence does not occur but the opportunities become more limited. In the professional setting, this purpose can be met with the help of license cancellation because the worker will not be able to maintain the same actions anymore. Finally, a person can be incapacitated (Shipp, 2011).
In this way, punishment turns out to be an integral element of the criminal justice that supports it and ensures the tendency to reach positive environment in the country. It proves that the law should be treated as a guideline to assess every step made forward. Punishment educates the representatives of the general public, showing them the scope of their freedom and abilities.
Types of Sentences and their Functions
Sentencing is a complex procedure, which requires much effort from the professional. Unfortunately, this issue is even more critical in the USA, as the country has no decent sentencing laws that can be followed. But, in general, professionals make their decisions when considering several types of sentencing (Easton & Piper, 2016).
In the majority of cases, people are put in the prison. This sentence can be indeterminate, which means that it does not mention the time that should be spent in the prison clearly and only provides the limits of the maximum and minimum. With the course of time, the judge may change the length of the sentence. Determinate sentences often follow the crime category to state the time the incarceration will last.
In some cases, the judge has the right to name the time. Mandatory sentences are usually developed for certain offenses when the judge does not play attention to the background of the suspect, and other types of sentences cannot be imposed. To make deterrence effective, people who are likely to become offenders should consider all advantages and disadvantages of the acts they are going to commit. Moreover, the punishment and sentence should be maintained decently for the suspects to see that they are likely to have a lot of problems if they do something wrong (Emmert, 2014). The time spent in the prison can be reduced in several cases.
First of all, it can be used if the person behaves well. Rehabilitation work can be needed to ensure that the person is able to live in the society. Finally, they can refer to the truth in Sentencing.
Intermediate sanctions restrict people’s freedom. They tie a person to the limited location. Such approach appeals to the convicts more than incarceration because it is less severe. However, it is rather costly; that is why professionals do not refer to it rather often (Bull, 2010).
Probation is another type of sentencing, which is not very strict. In its framework, offenders are expected to spend a particular amount of hours, being occupied in community services. The conditions of the probation may vary, and they depend on the crime.
The most severe sentence is a death penalty. It is abolished in many countries as well as in a range of states that belong to the US. Some professionals consider that the death penalty ensures that criminals will not commit terrible crimes again both when being free and on parole. It allows to pay killers back. Moreover, such approach provides an opportunity to save resources that can be spent on maintaining one’s life. However, some people believe that the death penalty is discriminatory and that nothing will happen (Emmert, 2014).
Sentencing Differences
Depending on the severity of the crime, various sentencing options can be approached when deciding how to punish the offender. The best outcome, of course, is when the conviction is not recorded at all. Still, even if it is recorded, the person may escape all other complications. Rather often criminals are exposed to the intervention programs or/and are made to maintain community services on the volunteer basis. They may receive a reparation or restriction order. In cases connected with business issues, individuals’ licenses are often canceled, and they are obliged to pay fines. When the crime is more serious, the offender may have home detention but is usually imprisoned. In some specific situations, compulsory drug treatment order may be offered (Bageric, 2001).
Trying to affect the severity of the sentence, lawyers refer to aggravating and mitigating factors. The first ones mainly make the case look even more horrible than it really is, while the second ones put the suspect in a good light. Thus, professionals can emphasize the fact that the victim was a representative of the vulnerable population or was a volunteer who helped many people when trying to prove that the punishment and sentence are to be more severe. They can claim that it was not the first attempt of the suspect to reach the victim and commit the crime or that one had been already found guilty of other actions.
When referring to mitigating factors, professionals may say that the offense was done accidentally, or that one was provoked by victim’s behavior. It can be claimed that the suspect is young and immature or that one has a good character. It is even possible to state that the damage done to the victim was not critical. Even though that all these factors are just words that lack ground and cannot be used as the evidence while making the final decision, they affect the way the judge and jury perceive the case (McGuire, 2016).
Sentencing can be also influenced by personal biases and discrimination. For example, it was claimed that young people who do not have any working places and are representatives of some minority are incarcerated more often than people from other populations. In the same way, even though sentencing is considered to be neutral regarding the gender of the suspect, women are rarely sent to prison (McCarty, 2011).
Conclusion
Sentencing can be treated as a set of rules, according to which the offender is punished. Punishment, in its case, tends to connect conducted crimes and sanctions that are used in the court. The first thing this system should address deals with the type of sanction selected and aspects that made that relate to the crime. Punishment, in its way, focuses on the justification of crimes according to the law. In this way, punishment and sentencing are connected with each other.
Taking everything mentioned into consideration, it can be claimed that punishment and sentencing are connected to each other. They both extremely depend on the evidence that is found for the particular case. Before developing a sentence, which will reveal the future of the suspect, the court has a possibility to consider various aspects that can affect the outcomes of the case, including the age of the suspect, one’s background, the record of previous crimes, etc.
They way one acts can be critical because gestures and mimics reveal people’s emotions. Additional factors that may affect the outcomes of the case should also be considered. The connection between crime and sentence may differ; that is why aggregating and mitigating factors should be discussed. This possible disparity may cause a lot of misunderstanding, as it seems to be wrong that the suspects may receive different sentences for the same crimes. In this way, the belief of the general public in the law and criminal justice can be affected adversely.
References
Bageric, M. (2001). Punishment & sentencing. London, UK: Cavendish Publishing.
Bull, M. (2010). Punishment and sentencing: Risk, rehabilitation and restitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Community corrections is an extremely important area of the criminal justice system because it helps to prepare inmates for becoming productive members of society. Unfortunately, community-based programs that can serve as effective alternatives to incarceration are substantially underutilized, which underscores a need for a reform of crime prevention policies in the United States. The aim of this paper is to discuss how the topic of community corrections has influenced my knowledge of the criminal justice system.
Discussion
Community corrections are the topic that has been the easiest to understand because, unlike other aspects of criminal justice, this is the area of the administration of punishment that is the most familiar to me. It has to do with the fact that a friend of mine has been working at the Department of Corrections for three years. Her responsibilities as a community corrections officer include the provision of day reporting services, housing assistance, mentoring, and family reunification. Re-entry services provided by Fiona help to ensure that parolees receive cognitive-based therapy, avoid substance abuse and engage in pro-social activities. It is extremely important since many individuals after their release into a community exhibit anti-social beliefs and behaviors, thereby threatening social cohesion and safety.
The weekly topic has helped me to understand that evidence-based practices used by community corrections officers help reducing negative peer associations, which are known to improve the effectiveness of programs used by correctional agencies. My understanding of the criminal justice system has been enhanced by the introduction to community corrections topic because it has allowed me to realize that overreliance on imprisonment as the administration of punishment creates the problem of prison overcrowding. The issue is a source of great concern in the country because growing prison populations put a strain on taxpayers. High prison populations increase the rates of misconduct occurrence and have long-standing psychological consequences for inmates. Therefore, there is a need to change the penal system in order to eliminate overcrowding.
Unlike community corrections, the topic of courts has been the most difficult to understand because the courtroom work is associated with complicated interrelationships between such parties as judges, prosecutors, accused parties, complaining parties, and defense attorneys, among others. The determination of an accused party’s guilt or innocence is a process the complexity of which depends on a case, a state, a court’s level, and other elements. Furthermore, the use of plea bargaining and agreements between different parties further complicates the issue.
It has not escaped my notice that community corrections provide housing assistance services for parolees who are unable to find safe and secure housing on their own. By helping ex-prisoners and their dependents to secure housing upon their release, correctional agencies make sure that their clients develop pro-social relationships with the community. It is extremely important because not all parolees are capable of returning back into society after spending considerable time in prison. The weekly topic has also provided me with invaluable insights into the inner workings of the community corrections centers that help released individuals to find home plans and meaningful employment.
Conclusion
The weak topic has been of great benefit to my understanding of the criminal justice system. Now I know that community corrections provide a viable solution for the problem of prison overcrowding and help released individuals to return back into society.
Criminal justice presents a field connected with a complex system of organizations and practices that allow to control criminal activity. In this paper, I would like to discuss criminal justice system in the United States, theoretical approaches related to the sphere, and methods of measuring crimes.
To begin with, I would like to state that my opinion on the criminal justice system has changed due to additional knowledge that I gained during the course with the help of additional materials that we were supposed to read. In general, I can say that my attitudes to this aspect of life of the human society have changed because I have managed to get additional knowledge. In fact, the readings used during the classes helped me to understand the role of each element of this system in particular and this is why the interconnection between these elements and the way that they complement each other have become more obvious. In fact, I would like to pay an increased attention to three parts that remain the most important in this system such as bodies where laws are created, law enforcement agencies, and corrections facilities. As for the latter, the units that we were supposed to read have helped me to understand the great role that they play in the development of the society. Therefore, the topic of crimes and their consequences seems very interesting to me and the information that I have been provided with helped me to better understand the system used to correct criminal behavior. Thus, I can say that my opinion on criminal justice has changed because the roles of its particular elements have become clearer to me.
Speaking about criminal justice and the particular practices used by specialists in this field, it is extremely important to consider the topic of methods of measuring crime. As it is clear from many sources related to the topic, there are a few methods that tend to be used in the majority of the cases. To begin with, they include uniform type reports that involve the data concerning all cases of criminal behavior that were reported. There are certain strengths and weaknesses of this method; the former include the ability of such reports to show tendencies related to crimes in the society. At the same time, there can be certain difficulties related to counting crimes and the division between those crimes that have been already completed and the cases of criminal attempts that may be omitted. Another popular method involves reports completed by criminals on their own; as for its advantages, it allows the specialists to better understand the most common motives of crimes and add new facts to official statistical data. Despite that, criminals may conceal important information or distort the facts for their own purposes and it has a negative impact on overall reliability of the reported information. There is one more method of measuring crime that involves the use of victimization studies. The latter are connected with personal experience and this fact causes both advantages and disadvantages of the method. From the one hand, the use of such surveys helps to estimate the level of criminal activity as it is because they also involve the information about those crimes that have not been reported to the police. Nevertheless, human factor remains one of the reasons that may decrease the reliability of information reported by participants of such studies. Some people may report the facts that do not correspond with the reality due to certain memory errors that occur because of psychological stress or age-related changes. Therefore, I suppose that the use of uniform type reports seems to be the most accurate method of measuring crime. I suppose this method to be the best because such reports do not involve the information that cannot be checked. As for the method that I believe to be the least accurate, I would say that self-reports seem to present the least credible information due to twisted perception of reality that is often experienced by people committing crimes.
There are different theories related to crimes and the way that people should assess them. In order to better understand current criminal justice system, it may be important to link it with famous theories related to criminology that have been popular earlier. If we speak about classical theory, it does not support the idea of severe punishment for crimes that do not involve serious harm to other people. Therefore, theorists developing this concept wanted to understand the difference between fair and unfair punishment. At the same time, due to strong religious beliefs of its creators, this theory attempts to connect crime with the notion of fate and influence of higher forces. Besides, that system involves the possibility of blood vengeance. Due to these reasons, I suppose that it is quite hard to apply it to present system due to major changes related to people’s assumptions. As for neo-classical theory, it involves the opinions expressed by previous researchers together with new ideas such as different methods of control helping to prevent people from violating laws. The latter involve a few factors such as unwillingness to disappoint other people and the theory focuses on paying more attention to socialization to prevent crime. I suppose that this particular assumption applies to our current system as many practices related to this sphere involve placing emphasis on person’s social responsibility.
A grand jury is an important component in a judicial process especially in a criminal case. It provides value to a trial process by embarking on a fact finding mission for a particular case. A grand jury can unearth crucial information that can be used to make the right ruling in a case. The Attorney General of a given country may direct the prosecutor to form a grand jury in regard to a certain criminal case. Individuals or parties may also request for the formation of a grand jury. In most countries, some laid out procedures must be followed when forming a grand jury. For instance, the President of the United States of America may not directly request for the formation of a grand jury but can do so by directing the Attorney General to constitute a grand jury. A keener look at the formation of grand juries reveals that there are salient issues that must be addressed like the need for reforms. The following analysis will help us appreciate why reforms in the federal grand juries are necessary.
Formation of a federal grand jury
A federal grand jury is a group of legally qualified individuals. In the federal system, the grand jury may include sixteen to twenty three members. The qualifications needed for individuals to be in the grand juries may vary in different countries and states (Hall, 2008). After the jurors are selected, they are sworn in by judges of courts of law. The sitting term of a grand jury is also dependent on a country or state. In a federal system, it can last up to a period of thirty six months depending on the case and the laid out procedures. Some juries convene twice a month. Others convene once a month while some do not convene at all until when the prosecutor requests them to do so. The grand jury that investigated President Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former white house intern, used to meet twice a week. The grand jury has no authority to condemn or declare if one is guilty of the charges conferred against him or her. After listening to the evidence given, the grand jury should make a decision on whether one should be charged or not. For example, in the criminal case regarding O.J. Simpson, the prosecutors wanted the grand jury to charge Simpson with the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Gold. However, the defense counsels objected this move. The prosecutors went ahead and filed a petition stating that the publicity of the case in the media could alter the facts of the case. This would lead to prejudiced charges. The judge consented to the view by the prosecutors. The grand juries may face objections in the courts. Individuals, governments or even the defendants may challenge the grand juries (Malloy, 1994). Various grounds may be used as the foundations for the objections to the grand juries. For instance, one may challenge the qualifications of the jurors. Motions may also be filed objecting the verdicts of the cases in courts.
Problems faced by a federal grand jury
The grand juries can be faced with several challenges in their work. These challenges occur when the defendants are not given enough representation in courts. Some defendants may not have any form of immunities for example, diplomatic immunities. The defendants may be required to appear before the grand juries without being accompanied by their counsels. The rules governing the presentation of evidence in court are important before any criminal trial. The rules ensure that standards are complied with. Substantial evidence has to be adduced in court for any case to meet the legal threshold required by the grand juries.
In some countries, there are clear and elaborate procedures on the admission of jurors to a court of law. In some instances, aspects of training, recruitment, and orientation of the jurors in courts are not elaborate. In other instances, wages and remunerations are not standardized. These in a way have diluted professionalism in the federal grand jury systems. The manner in which the grand juries are constituted is an important aspect in this study. The formation defines the physical layouts of the grand juries. The regulations defining what the jurors should do and what they should not do during the proceedings are also outlined at the formation stage. For example, in some countries, the jurors are not supposed to make notes during the proceedings of the grand juries.
Reforms in a federal grand jury
In order to adequately address the problems and challenges experienced by the federal grand juries, several reforms are deemed necessary in order to create grand juries that are standard and effective. Reforms in the judicial systems are strong pillars needed to create effective grand juries. Several reforms may be proposed in the federal criminal procedures. The rights of the defendants should be upheld whether immunity is provided or not. In the proceedings of the grand juries, it is very important that the counsels accompany the defendants. It is important that the defendants are allowed to give evidence. The evidence provided may be used to acquit the defendants. Social justice is an important factor in regard to criminal justice. It is therefore important to come up with rules and regulations that comply with social justice.
The jurors serving in the grand juries should be adequately trained. Professionalism should be exercised in their recruitments. Professional codes of ethics should be formulated in line with the missions and visions of the grand juries. Guidelines on the appropriate schedules for meetings to be held by the grand juries should be formulated (Redfem, 2004). The appointing authorities of the juries and the time when the juries should be appointed should be stated in the guidelines. Remunerations and wages for the juries are aspects that need to be well addressed (Jakoby, 2005). If they are not well addressed, they may create low esteem among the jurors. The harmonization of salaries should be properly looked into. The United Nations Organization has formulated standards of criminal justice. The United Nations Organization is therefore better placed to spearhead worldwide campaigns in favor of criminal justice. It is important for countries to conform to the standards of criminal justice required by the United Nations Organization.
Conclusion
Some countries no longer have grand juries in their criminal justice systems. Other countries like the United States of America still use the federal grand juries in their criminal justice systems. Important measures must then be put in place so as to ensure that the grand juries are effective and that they deliver justice for all.
References
Hall, J.W. (2008). A Fairer and More Democratic Federal Grand Jury System. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(5), 334-336.
Jakoby, S. M. (2005). Cycles of Economic Thought. Economic Ideas and the Labour Market. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 25 (1), 43–78.
Malloy, R. P. (1994). Adam Smith and the Modern Discourse of Law and Economics. Adam Smith and the Philosophy of Law and Economics, 23(3), 45-58.
Redfem, A. (2004). Regulation of International Arbitration. Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 21(2), 12-27.
The first logical fallacy that is widely met within the framework of criminal justice is called the “straw man.” This fallacy is based on the principle of arguing against a distorted version of the argument. The misrepresentation of the original argument is not taken into account, and the key objective of this fallacy is to confuse the opponent and form one’s opinion on the wrong argument. In the case, if the “straw man” (the exaggerated argument) was refuted, the party may claim that that the original argument was disproved as well (Banks, 2016). This technique has a rather decent impact on criminal justice because it allows one of the parties to argue against a detested image of the opposition instead of supporting their claims.
The second logical fallacy that is reviewed within the framework of this paper is called an argument from authority. The issue with this fallacy within the framework of criminal justice consists in the fact that it is usually abused by those parties that do not have enough authority to make a certain claim. Because of this, they are forced to manipulate others to a certain extent to influence the outcomes (Chapman & Davis, 1978). One of the most prevalent examples of this fallacy is a judge’s behavior when the matter of the case interferes with their personal life or values. This fallacy seriously impacts the area of criminal justice because it creates a great deal of bias and impacts the outcomes of court hearings.
The third logical fallacy also called an appeal to the majority, is the extension of the second concept reviewed in this paper. On a bigger scale, this logical fallacy can be described as a statement that if the majority believes that something is true and correct, then it is that way. The concept of an appeal to the majority is also widely met in criminal justice because the authorities may be influenced either by fellow judges or the jury and reach verdicts that do not go in line with their personal beliefs or criminal laws (Roh, 2003). Within the topic of criminal justice, it should always be taken into account that truth has nothing to do with common agreements because making a valid decision and trying to fit in are two interchangeable concepts.
The fourth logical fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance. This concept is based on the belief that something is false unless it has not been proven otherwise. In criminal justice, this logical fallacy is also known as “innocent until proven guilty.” This is a basic concept that is applied all over the United States because the whole criminal justice system is based on this concept (Roh, 2003). This particular logical fallacy is rather important for the parties that are involved in criminal dealings because the absence of proof leaves both sides innocent and creates impassable obstacles for US criminal justice.
The last logical fallacy that is reviewed within the framework of the current paper is the belief that correlation implies causality. This concept is not met in criminal justice as often as the appeal to ignorance, but it still has a substantial impact on the outcomes of court hearings. Judges tend to connect the dots between several variables even if the connections among them are weak and there is not enough evidence to support all the claims (Banks, 2016). The problem here consists of the fact that common sense is disregarded and external variables are not included in the argument. This confusion is the main cause of incorrect decisions made in court.
References
Banks, C. (2016). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chapman, M. L., & Davis, F. V. (1978). Skills for ethical action: A process to judgment and action. Educational Leadership, 35(6), 457-461.
Roh, Y. R. (2003). An extended conception of rationality and moral actions. Journal of Value Inquiry, 37(1), 35-49. doi:10.1023/a:1024033810944
Criminal justice is a popular theme in media, many of its aspects becoming central to the plot of movies and television shows. It’s a genre that experienced evolution over the years and the media portrayal shifts in accordance with the realities of social perceptions. In the television shows and films examined in this paper, the creators attempt to display various aspects of the criminal justice system realistically and positively. It can be argued that the genre’s popularity has led it to become an influential force on how people perceive various aspects of criminal justice. In some cases, it may inhibit the process and limit professional roles, while others may raise topics of social justice that would not be known to the outside world without such widespread media.
Introduction
Criminal justice is a popular theme in media, many of its aspects becoming central to the plot of movies and television shows. It’s a genre that experienced evolution over the years and the media portrayal shifts in accordance with the realities of social perceptions. Media holds an important role in portraying the criminal justice system and attempts to remain accurate, but many aspects are dramatized or simplified for the purpose of entertainment.
Law Enforcement
Show or Media Example # 1
One of the most iconic TV programs on law enforcement is CSI. It represents law enforcement as a highly effective force, which is able to collect forensic evidence and resolve high-profile crimes using specialized training and science. For the most part, the depiction is positive, with forensics law enforcement remaining competent. The stages of the criminal justice process vary by episode, but usually, it demonstrated the collection of evidence and arrest with some episodes extending to the discovery of evidence and trial.
The show attempts to be realistic using forensic science, but it does not represent the realities of the criminal justice system, where each case requires complex forensic evidence such as DNA testing. This has become known as the “CSI effect” where jurors have unreasonable expectations from law enforcement because of shows such as these which do not necessarily match day-to-day activity or required protocols (Maeder & Corbett, 2015).
Show or Media Example # 2
The motion picture End of Watch tells an autobiographic tale of two police officers in Los Angeles that investigate gang criminality and drug trafficking. The film presents law enforcement realistically as human beings, who are brave but are also subject to poor judgment and errors. This is due to the movie made partially in a documentary police procedural style. However, the overall depiction is positive as the fellow officers demonstrate compassion, the responsibility to their duty, and sacrifice while encountering a dangerous situation (Lesher & Ayer, 2012).
The stages of criminal justice-focused in the film are investigation and arrest. These remain the primary responsibilities of patrolling police officers which the film focuses on. It can be said that the representation is fair since the protagonists are depicted in a manner that is professional. In terms of realism, the film accurately demonstrates a patrol unit in a crime-ridden neighborhood, which commonly has to participate in raids on gangs and drug-busts. This leads to militarization since they are in danger of being in shootouts since the war on drugs has caused numerous instances of violence involving law enforcement (Murch, 2015).
Courts
Show or Media Example # 1
A significant part of Law and Order: Special Victims Units plot is dedicated to the courts, depicting all aspects of the criminal justice process including prosecution, indictment, plea bargaining, trial, and sentencing. The focus was on these stages since the primary purpose of the show is to create episodes of crime and its resolution through legal means of trial. The representation of courts and victims in the show is serious and solemn, highlighting the full power of the justice system which is a positive aspect of Law and Order is realistic with modern-day activities as episodes depict crimes and trials in relation to social issues such as realities of the current climate of the #MeToo movement where more attention is given to victims.
However, the representation of criminal justice is not always fair, since the show depicts the process as simplified with almost always the criminal being rightfully persecuted, which rarely occurs in real life with cases of special victims (Fairstein, 2018).
Show or Media Example # 2
The movie The Judge depicts courtrooms in a more exciting manner, providing candor and exciting legal debates. The movie presents positive aspects and attempts to honor the courtroom as a place of justice, by portraying personal discussions among characters on the meaning and purpose of the law. All stages of the criminal justice process are depicted in the film as the pilot attempts to follow one specific case of unintentional manslaughter by an old judge from beginning to end (Downey & Dobkin, 2014).
The film is fair in depicting criminal justice as it goes deep in discussing the cause for each action and the effects it may have on the trial, and in some cases, the future life of an individual. This makes the viewer strongly consider the impacts of the justice system. However, there are some unrealistic details from a legal standpoint as there are a number of procedural errors. This can be expected from Hollywood productions as legality is a relatively complex and boring concept without dramatization and simplification offered in the film (Machura & Ulbrich, 2002).
Corrections
Show or Media Example # 1
A TV series The Night Of presents the corrections system as a dark and derogatory institution. This negative perception is portrayed as part of a persecutory and corrupt system that does not fulfill its role. The series portrays all stages of criminal justice as the focus is on the investigation of a specific case and it demonstrates the transformation of the protagonist in the corrections system. Overall, the show does not fairly represent the corrections aspect of criminal justice as it attempts to dramatize and establish a pattern of abuse in the system. In general, the show is not realistic in depicting the corrections system as many of the aspects such as cavity searches and disregard by the guards are rare and highly illegal. However, violent inmates may form gangs and demonstrate antisocial or psychopathic behavior (Petruccelli et al., 2017).
Show or Media Example # 2
Orange Is the New Black is the most popular modern series about the corrections system, portraying it as highly abusive, discriminatory, and at times violent, especially towards women and minorities. This portrayal is negative, particularly of guards and administrative staff of the prison, shown as either incompetent or sadistic, fitting with the dramatized stereotype. The series shows some elements of arrest and court trials but focuses primarily on incarceration after sentencing since it serves as the premise to the plot and highlights protagonist transformation.
The representation of corrections is not fair as the women are forced to experience significant difficulties in everyday life, many of which prevent successful social rehabilitation and force them into further crimes. While the show does dramatize numerous aspects, it remains realistic in many details of social significance such as racial divide within prisons, discrimination, and violation of many human and female rights such as limited access to hygiene products (Enck & Morrissey, 2015).
Conclusion
In the television shows and films examined in this paper, the creators attempt to display various aspects of the criminal justice system realistically and positively. However, for entertainment purposes, many things are simplified or overdramatized, which may influence social perceptions. While such media may inspire curiosity from the public on the inner-workings of criminal justice, it should not be viewed as close to the complexity of the real world.
References
Enck, S. M., & Morrissey, M. E. (2015). If orange is the new black, I must be color blind: Comic framings of post-racism in the prison-industrial complex. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 32(5), 303–317. Web.
Lesher, J. (Producer), & Ayer, D. (Director). (2012). End of watch [Motion picture]. United States: Open Road Films.
Machura, S., & Ulbrich, S. (2001). Law in film: Globalizing the Hollywood courtroom drama. Journal of Law and Society, 28(1), 117–132. Web.
Maeder, E. M., & Corbett, R. (2015). Beyond frequency: Perceived realism and the CSI effect. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57(1), 83–114. Web.
Murch, D. (2015). Crack in Los Angeles: Crisis, militarization, and black response to the late twentieth-century war on drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 162–173. Web.
Petruccelli, I., Barbaranelli, C., Costantino, V., Gherardini, A., Grilli, S., Craparo, G., & D’Urso, G. (2017). Moral disengagement and psychopathy: A Study on offenders in Italian jails. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(5), 1–12. Web.
Conflict of interests is bound to arise every time the needs of a healthy worker collide with the properties of a formal organization. Naturally, the interests of an organization will prevail over those of the workers who will eventually end up being frustrated and demoralized. The frustrated workers are likely to react by seeking beneficial employment elsewhere, produce less, and feel completely sick of working. An organization that is often regarded as a living entity can avoid such a debacle by doing away with employment practices that only end up sucking off the very much-needed energy from workers. Instead, employees can be given less challenging work so as to give them enough time to recover from burnouts. To achieve this end, a proper and clear understanding of how workers behave is necessary. To gain such understanding, a manager must be thoroughly acquainted with Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y styles of management. In particular, those running a police department should try and understand the full implications of theory X.
Theory X tends to be more domineering as opposed to theory Y. On the other hand, theory Y which is based on Argyris’s model assumes that the interests of an organization can be harmonized with those of an individual to avoid conflicts of interests. The foregoing can be understood by considering some of the assumptions made under both theories. Theory X assumes that an average human is not fond of working and would choose not to work if possible. Also, it assumes that without coercion, threats, and direct control, people would probably undermine the achievement of an organization’s goal. Lastly, it assumes that people like to be directed so as to avoid responsibility. Theory Y on the other hand recognizes that people get tired whether they are working or playing (Charles etal, 2012). It also assumes that people can bring about the achievement of organizations objectives through commitment and not necessarily through punishment. Such a commitment can be as a result of guaranteed rewards. Moreover, workers are presumed to learn under normal circumstances how to seek and accept responsibility to enhance performance. Humans are presumed to possess a high degree of imagination that is helpful in solving organizational problems. Finally, theory Y presumes that an organization only partially utilizes the abilities of their employees and that unleashing that energy may lead to greater organizational achievements and more fulfilled workers. Apparently, theory X is more Draconian and theory Y is more humane.
In police agencies, there are four basic structural types of design namely, line, line and staff, functional, and matrix (Charles etal, 2012). The simplest, clearest, and oldest form of organizational structure is known as a line structure. It is based on the premise that authority flows from the top to the bottom of an organization. The line structure which has its origin in the military follows a clear and unbroken line. The superior-subordinate relationship presumes that the subordinates will adhere to the chain of command to ensure accountability. In the police force, line functions are also referred to as operations including traffic, criminal investigation, and uniformed patrol. The chain of command includes the chief of police, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, corporal, and police officer. The functional structure ensures efficiency by making it possible to modify line structure. The matrix structure ensures that there is interdepartmental networking through which the exchange of information and human resource can take place (Stojkovic etal, 2007).
Line and staff structure provides internal support for police departments. The functions of the staff are further subdivided into administrative and auxiliary staff services. Support or auxiliary units include things such as crime laboratory services, communications, etc which give immediate assistance to the operations of line elements. On the other hand, administrative staff units such as training and personnel provide services that are of less immediate assistance and are supportive of the entire police department. This structure has the advantage of reducing and eliminating special problems, such as nepotism, corruption, etc. This is possible because experts are hired to deal with the problems. The experts also tend to spend a great deal of time analyzing the problem.
While the line structure utilizes all its resources to serve the public directly, the line and staff structure offer internal support for the line structure such as expert advice, hiring experts to analyze physical evidence, departmental conformity, and eliminating vices within the police force such as corruption and so on. Line assignments may include traffic control, uniformed patrol, etc. Staff assignments such as fiscal management, media relations, training, personnel, forensics, etc are carried out by specialized professionals (Ortmeier & Meese, 2009). Things such as the Bureau of filed services which are composed of the patrol districts are the primary line function of the police department. Another example of a line function is the investigative services bureau. Staff functions are also represented by upper echelon offices and the bureau administrative services. The chief of police oversees the functions of these two.
References
Charles, R. S., Territo, L. & Taylor, W. R. (2012). Police Administration: Structures, Processes and Behavior, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing Co. Pearson.
Ortmeier, P.J. & Meese, E. (2009). Leadership, Ethics and Policing: Challenges for the 21st Century, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J.(2007). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management. La Grange, KY: Wordsworth Publishing.