Category: Criminal Justice

Introduction

Integrity is something inherently personal, yet also is something broad, even overwhelming. It may stem from a single person, but it envelops almost every part of our society, every department of government, runs in the veins of every philosophical thought. Therefore, integrity also plays a major part in the legal system and is studied thoroughly both from an ethical and legal perspective. That is why this work will discuss integrity as a whole, will provide the author’s opinion on the subject, and also highlight different interpretations of the term from various academics, while studying its place in the criminal justice system.

Defining Integrity

When discussing Integrity from the perspective of any science or discipline, it still will always be about wholesomeness. It is a crucial part of the development of any person; it can be both inspiration and motivation. From a personal point of view, integrity is an amalgam of ethics and morals that shapes one’s outlook on life. It is also a backbone that keeps a person strictly on a path of his principles.

Integrity is also honesty, yet not honesty in its broadest and simplest sense. Integrity, first and foremost, is being honest with oneself. It is plausible to say that Integrity is truthfulness; the truthfulness of one’s character. From the position of behavioral science, integrity is both the accuracy and precision of action. It is the consistency of one’s behavior. Having the developed system of personal values and beliefs, being able to follow those beliefs thoroughly, is what integrity is all about. True integrity is not stagnant. Value systems can improve, beliefs can be broadened, a character can develop new principles, but an ethical core of a person will remain the same while adjusting to the new experience by spiritual fundamentals.

In my opinion, integrity is always a virtue. According to Ridge (2015), “Integrity is often mentioned as a requirement for leaders in general” (pp. 52). But, objectively speaking, integrity may devolve into something despicable, even harmful. The lowest parts of integrity are stubbornness and selfishness. One can say that the extreme manifestation of integrity is zeal. Without no sense or responsibility, overbearing integrity can shape the very narrow mind.

My personal belief is that integrity is all about willpower. The willpower to follow through. To me, it is not even about the righteousness of one’s judgment; it is about doing what you think is right. Being unflinching, even before the huge amount of adversaries; following your vision, even when nobody supports you. This is integrity for me. It is an important part of my character. What use do I have for all of my knowledge if I do not have enough confidence to apply it? What is my belief, if never follow it? There is no point in accumulating experience if I cannot form a solid spiritual base with it.

Different Interpretations of Integrity

A lot of attention is given to integrity in different academic circles. For example, as Ridge (2015) states in his work. “Integrity is not a value by itself, but rather the level of fit between an individual’s decisions and behaviors and his or her relationship to the values and morals of the communities in which he or she lives and works” (pp. 52). I can agree with this interpretation of the term. Truly, our character, in general, is not developed separately from our surroundings. This interpretation is also significant in the context of this work since the legal system is the multi-layered framework, which involves myriads of different people in different positions.

According to Ratner (2016), ethical integrity is the virtue of both competence and independence, followed by the trust. Again, I find this position quite reasonable. To be competent is to be sure of one’s skill. To be independent is to be sure in one’s judgment. Being able to trust in your knowledge and to be precise about your judgment is what I would call a fine example of integrity.

Allan (2014), on the other hand, sees integrity as the symbiosis of fairness and respect. Certainly, a solid approach to this subject. To be fair and just, one must have a developed system of beliefs. To know right from wrong, a character must be able to evaluate and compare situations with his principles. And to show respect, a person must have a unified framework of values, to be able to relate to another individual. All of the aforementioned interpretations, even though quite different, still complement each other nicely and also go in line with my understanding of integrity.

Integrity in Criminal Justice System

When studying the subject of integrity from the perspective of the philosophy of law, it becomes obvious why integrity has such a pivotal and controversial place in the current conceptualization of law. Evaluating the integrity of some field or profession is a complex task. According to Ridge (2015), “Integrity is adherence to the interrelated sets of standards, values, and principles derived from the three domains that affect our decisions and behavior: personal, professional, and organizational” (pp. 52). The integrity of a professional is not something that is personally his. If a person enters into a highly organized structure, his ethical framework becomes the ethical framework of that structure. As Ratner (2016) notes in his work, “the primary function of a judge is to uphold the rule of law” (pp. 153). To pass the judgment by the law, it is not enough to simply know the legal system. Judges must interpret the law based on fairness. As Allan (2014) states in his paper, “a judge cannot be a mere technician, deciding cases without regard for moral principle: his own personal moral and political convictions are necessarily engaged” (pp. 1). To be able to judge with the principle of justice, one must have this principle engraved in his system of values. That is why integrity is important for any judge in any branch; and doubly so in the criminal justice system, where people’s lives depend on the right decision.

I think that the most pressing integrity issue in the criminal justice system today is the lack of fairness. Judges may become susceptible to bias, which can become dangerous to the population as a whole. To tackle this issue, it is required to perform a major cultural change. As noted before, integrity is not something people develop on their own; it is also shaped by their surroundings. So, to transform judiciaries, the whole society must be transformed at first. The values of respect and responsibility must be nurtured across the whole culture.

Conclusion

Integrity is the presence of the developed system of beliefs and the ability to follow through with those beliefs. A lot of different academic studies are dedicated to the subject of integrity. It is an important part of a character and an important quality of a judge. That is why integrity issues are a severe threat to the creditability and professionalism of the criminal justice system. In my opinion, if society as a whole can be taught the virtues of ethical integrity, it will help to improve the integrity of the legal system also.

References

Allan, T. R. S. (2014). Justice, Integrity, and the Common Law. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 14(44), 1-9.

Ratner, M. A. (2016). Judicial Ethical Integrity: Challenges and Solutions. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 39(1), 149-160.

Ridge, R. A. (2015). Putting the I in Integrity. Nursing Management, 46(4), 52-54.

Introduction

According to (Skolnick, 1966), discretion is the process by which actors in the system of criminal justice try to determine whether a person is innocent or guilty which leads to either sentencing or freedom. These actors include prosecutors, jury, judges, as well as police officers. Application of discretion assists them in making various decisions which include penalization as well as a mode of punishing the offender. The initial stage in which discretion is applied in the system of criminal justice is where police officers make a decision on whether a suspect should be arrested for a particular offense or not.

Application of Discretion in System of Criminal Justice

(Cole, 2004), argues that, since discretion is applied by each of the various parties of the criminal justice system, uses of discretion may differ according to their roles as well as powers are given to them. For example, when police officers forward a suspect to a prosecutor, the decision is made on whether or not to pursue the particular charge that the suspect has been arrested for. Discretion powers allow the prosecutor to drop a case based on several considerations which include, offender’s characteristics, characteristics of an offense, likelihood of conviction as well as availability of civil remedies. Prosecutors may also make decisions on whether to reduce charges, seek indictments or have charges filed for adjudication. The second application is judicial discretion where a judge is allowed to make a decision concerning a case within a particular specification.

That is, the precedent or legislation lays down some constraints within which they expect judicial decisions to vary according to the judicial actor’s discretion. These may include probation, dismissal of charges, and setting of bails, and acceptance of pleas. Thirdly, discretion can be exercised by the jury in the system of criminal justice. Upon hearing the evidence presented before a court by the defendant and petitioner, a jury decides on a verdict based on the judge’s instructions as well as the evidence presented.

Advantages of Discretion in the Criminal Justice System

Discretion has been found to be very essential in a system of criminal justice due to its various roles in the system. One of the advantages of discretion is where it allows a variety of decisions that could not have been anticipated by bodies of legislature to be made. This is because, it’s impossible for these bodies to predict all circumstances regarding each and every crime, predict mores, and put forward laws that cover all criminal and noncriminal conducts. Therefore, the application of discretion provides room for flexibility of decisions where crimes are judged accordingly but within specific limitations put forward by law.

A high level of discretion leads to the professionalism of decisions made. That is an increased level of discretion results in considerations as well as discussions of various possibilities before arriving at final decisions. Increased discretion also provides an allowance for different laws that vary from nation to nation and region to region. This variation occurs as some countries may consider a certain aspect to be illegal while others may consider it legal. Other differences may be due to the fact that different charges are laid for similar crimes and that some nations allow a greater variety than others, calling for a high level of discretion in the system of criminal justice. (Cole, 2004)

Disadvantages of Discretion in the Criminal Justice System

(Cole, 2004), argues that, there are a number of disadvantages associated with theapple action of discretion in the system of criminal justice. These disadvantages are based on two problems, one related to the definition given to the term, while the other regards its job autonomy. Discretion has been found to receive irregular definitions which results from its ambiguity in literature. This consequently leads to irregular definitions concerning its application by the various actors in the system of criminal justice. For example, the quantitative definition of discretion does not provide means by which behavior should be measured.

A high level of application of discretion resuins to abuse of the same, where actors of the court find themselves diverting from the law or arriving at decisions based on erroneous evidence. Some may become biased in their decision-making, for example when a decision is made to favor a particular offender because he/she belongs to a similar ethnic group with the judge. A lot of discretion may also lead to possibilities of corruption among actors of the system of criminal justice.

This is where decisions are made on the basis of what will or has been given in return. Police officers, judges, prosecutors as well as other actors with authority are tempted to use their power for personal gains while in office. For example, an innocent person who is not able or unwilling to give bribe may be arrested by police officers, leaving the guilty one free. (Skolnick, 1966)

Opinion on the Amount of Available Discretion in the System of Criminal Justice

There happens to be a lot of discretion in the system of criminal justice, which has been found to increase with time. This increase has been due to research done on crimes that have resulted to a great variety of arguments concerning legality of actions as well as illegality. There have also risen disagreements in the understanding of law by prosecutors, jury, judges, and police officers, which have led to different ways in which discretion is exercised. An example of increased level of discretion is where courts take longer periods to arrive at decisions. This is because each of the various actors in the system of criminal justice wants his/her exercise of discretion to be considered.

The number of cases presented and ruled in court has also increased than before which indicates a high level of discretion. Therefore, some nations have opted to regulate the high levels of discretion by setting mandatory laws for sentencing and specifying charges for particular offences. (Radzinowicz, 1971)

Conclusion

In spite of the various limitations that have been found to result from an overly exercise of discretion; it still remains a very essential aspect of the system of criminal justice. The absence of discretion may lead to so many offenders in the community as well as a larger number of them in remands. Application of discretion is therefore found to keep the conveyer belt moving, where cases that receive ruling give room for more cases to be ruled upon. The current situation of inconsistency in the application of discretion has been found to result from lack of a model that gives the general procedure through which discretion should be conducted. However, actors have been urged to exercise their discretional powers fairly and effectively so as to produce an efficient system of criminal justice. (Cole, 2004)

References

Cole G. (2004): Criminal Justice in America: Thomson Wadsworth.

Radzinowicz L. (1971): Crime and Justice: Basic books.

Skolnick J. (1966): Law enforcement in democratic society: Wiley.

Common law and civil law are two opposite systems that influence the criminal justice regulations in the European countries, in the Eastern countries, in the United States, and in Australia. From this point, the criminal justice systems in such countries as the United Kingdom, France, and Kuwait can be discussed as impacted by different and often opposite principles, rules, and norms. In this context, the approaches to organising the jury trials in these countries are also different and rather specific. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the authorities in Kuwait only discuss the possibilities to use the jury system in the country, without implementing this model in the judicial system. While referring to the examples of criminal justice systems in the United Kingdom, France, and Kuwait, it is important to claim that jury trials should be used in the civil law, common law, and mixed systems more actively because the use of juries improves the court decision-making; increases the level of accountability; and promotes the principles of justice and democracy.

In order to concentrate on the advantages of jury trials for citizens and criminal justice systems in different countries, it is necessary to discuss the differences in the civil law and common law. Thus, the common law is typical for the United Kingdom where legal statutes are absent and precedents are taken into account. From this point, the main focus is on the jury’s verdict that follows the discussion of the case’s facts and on the judge’s final decision based on that verdict. The principles of the civil law that are observed and followed in France differ significantly from the norms of the common law because the main focus is on discussing the aspects of the case in the context of legal codes. In this situation, the role of the jury is rather limited, but the jury trial is still actively used in France to state justice in courts. The criminal justice system of Kuwait is even more complex because it is based on combining the elements of the common law typical for the United Kingdom with the elements of the French civil law in the context of focusing on the Islamic law. Although the jury system is not followed in the country, it is important to discuss the possible advantages of using the jury trial in Kuwait.

The first argument to support the idea that the jury system should be spread widely in the world countries is that the jury system is the key to the unbiased and effective court decision-making that depends on the possibility to evaluate the opinions of professionals in the sphere of law and criminal justice as well as on the visions of citizens. In the United Kingdom, the power of judges became partially reduced because of the principles of the common law and the necessity to focus on the juries’ opinions. From this point, the independence in decision-making is a guarantee of the just solution in the case. On the contrary, in Kuwait, judges are responsible for the decision-making process in courts, but there are still possibilities to implement the jury system in the country because it is based on the French judicial system. Dudzinski notes that “having a judge sit with citizen jurors actually improves the quality of their decision making”. The reason is that juries and judges receive the opportunity to exchange views and influence the trial equally. As a result, the final decision is more informed and supported with more arguments. In this case, the jury system has significant benefits while being effectively integrated into the traditional judicial system.

The focus on jury trials is also important to improve accountability that is discussed in relation to the judge and juries’ decisions. The researchers pay attention to the fact that it is ineffective to rely on decisions of only judges or only juries, but the source of the necessary accountability can be observed in the more efficient combination of the jury system with the principles of the common and civil law. It is important to state that the UK jury system is supported with the necessity of jury vetting in order to state that all jurors are responsible, respected, and not influenced by bias in their conclusions. According to Dudzinski, the issue of accountability is addressed because the jury system means that “citizens and judges bring their different backgrounds to deliberation, which can lead to a better informed ultimate decision”. From this point, juries and judges in the United Kingdom and France work more effectively when they know that their opinions can be evaluated by the other side. In this context, the juries perform as the alternative power to improve the quality of the judicial proceedings. While referring to the example of Kuwait, it is possible to note that the integration of the jury system in the country can be discussed as the tribute to the traditions, and this step is important while focusing on Shari’a as the Islamic law. In this context, the jury system can expand the possibility for citizens in Kuwait to refer to their traditions, opinions, and values. As a result, the jury system is significant to guarantee that all the aspects of the specific case are discussed in detail.

In addition, the jury system needs to be not only preserved but also spread in the world countries because jury trials are directly associated with the promotion of principles and ideas of justice and democracy in these countries. In France, the jury system is not as actively used as in the United Kingdom, but in this country, juries more often perform as protectors of the interests of citizens who control issues associated with focusing on human rights when the criminal statutes are applied to certain cases. In Kuwait, judges are often non-citizens, and it is important to use such tools as the jury trials in order follow the opinions of the Muslim community and to connect its values with the judicial system. From this perspective, the jurors are perceived as the representatives of the society whose task is to protect the community’s values and to guarantee the order in the society. The possibility to refer to the opinions of jurors means that the interests of the public and human rights will be met.

However, there are opponents to the jury system who are inclined to state that this approach is rather biased and risky because lay judges are expected to act and influence the court decision and sentence equally to professional judges. Researchers are inclined to note that there are many cases when juries make their decisions while demonstrating prejudice and the lack of knowledge in the sphere of law. In spite of the fact that these aspects are often discussed as the main barriers that can prevent the jury trials from spreading in many countries, it is also important to state that the effective choice of juries contributes to avoiding the possible bias in the court. In addition, there are many debiasing techniques to overcome the issue and to assist juries in discussing the case effectively. Thus, the possibility to listen to the opinions of persons who are not professionals in the field of law and criminal system and who are not interested in the results of the trial personally is important because the chance for being affected by prejudice decreases in contrast to the opinion promoted by the opponents of the jury system.

From this point, the examples of the jury systems in the United Kingdom and France demonstrate that there are many ways to implement the approach in the criminal justice system of the country. Furthermore, there are possibilities for mixing the features of different systems in order to implement them in the context of such country as Kuwait. It is important to note that the integration of the jury system in Kuwait is an important step to improving the use of the Islamic law in courts. As a result, while using jury systems in the contexts of the civil law and common law actively, it is possible to expect the increases in the quality of the overall criminal justice system and decisions; the increases in accountability associated with such concepts as justice and accuracy; and the accentuated focus on the human rights and liberties.

Bibliography

Bassiouni C, The Shari’a and Islamic Criminal Justice in Time of War and Peace (Cambridge University Press 2013).

‘British Nationals Arrested In Kuwait’ (Government UK, 2015) Web.

Dammer H and Albanese J, Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (Cengage Learning 2013).

Delmas-Marty M, European Criminal Procedures (Cambridge University Pres 2002).

Donovan J, Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (University of North Carolina Press 2010).

Dudzinski, J, ‘Justification for Juries: A Comparative Perspective on Models of Jury Composition’, (2013) 15 UILR 1615.

Feld L and Voigt S, ‘Economic growth and judicial independence: cross country evidence using a new set of indicators’ (2003) 19 EJPE 497.

Hans V, ‘Jury Systems around the World’, (2008) 4 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 275.

‘Lay Participation in Legal Decision Making’ (2003) 25 LP 83.

Higginbotham P, ‘So Why Do We Call Them Trial Courts?’, (2002) 55 SMULR 1405.

Human Rights Act 1998.

International Business Publications, Kuwait Justice System and National Police Handbook (International Business Publications 2007).

International Constitutional Law. ‘Kuwait-Constitution’ (ICL 2011) Web.

Litan R, Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System (Brookings Institution Press, 2011).

Ma Y, ‘Lay Participation in Criminal Trials: A Comparative Perspective’ (1998) 8 ICJR 74.

Malsch M, Democracy in the Courts: Lay Participation in European Criminal Justice Systems (Ashgate Publishing 2009).

Roberson C and Das D, An Introduction to Comparative Legal Models of Criminal Justice (CRC Press 2008).

Roesch R and Zapf P, Forensic Psychology and Law (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).

Shauer F, ‘On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law’ (2006) UPLR 192.

Stevenson D, ‘The Function of Uncertainty within Jury Systems’ (2012) 19 GMLR 513.

Terrill R, World Criminal Justice Systems: A Comparative Survey (Routledge 2012).

Tyler T, Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Perspective (Russell Sage Foundation 2007).

Vogler R, A World View of Criminal Justice (Ashgate Publishing 2005).

Voigt S, ‘The Effects of Lay Participation in Courts – A Cross-Country Analysis’ (2009) 25 EJPE 327.

Transnational crime involves the participation of more than one country in the commission, planning, and other stages of the crime. The global and intercultural nature of such crimes makes it difficult to combat them. International crimes, in turn, are crimes against humanity that indirectly affect the entire world (Reichel & Albanese, 2013). Crimes such as genocide and terrorism are targeted and often committed within one country, but the scale of the problem, in this case, is international. Transnational crimes typically involve trafficking in drugs, weapons, counterfeits, breaking into government agencies, and offering prohibited commercial services.

Comparative criminal justice systems provide different perspectives on how to achieve justice. Obtaining similarities and differences in studying the criminal law of different countries allows taking a broader look at the crime or problem. The intercultural approach is not yet well understood in criminology, which is why transnational crimes take place and are dangerous (Natarajan, 2019). Different approaches to writing laws can lead to a more balanced decision regarding the criminals and the corresponding law adjustment for the better.

The central values ​​of the US criminal justice system are to protect the rights of citizens and ensure the safety of a society in which everyone is equal before the law. As a consequence, people who break the law must be isolated from society and guaranteed the opportunity for rehabilitation (Lippke, 2019). The historical approach to the comparative analysis of criminal justice systems allows us to understand the reasons for the adoption of specific laws and avoid mistakes of the past. The political approach is focused on upholding society’s values and raising questions about the balance of power that regulates the law and comes before the law.

References

Lippke, R. (2019). Fundamental Values of Criminal Procedure. In The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (p. 25). Oxford University Press.

Natarajan, M. (Ed.). (2019). International and transnational crime and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Reichel, P., & Albanese, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of transnational crime and justice. SAGE publications.

The 3rd chapter of the “Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice” text by Jacinta M. Gau talks about univariate and bivariate elements as well as their uses in criminal statistics and programs like the SPSS. The first part of the chapter introduces the three univariate data distribution displays that are frequently used in statistics, such as frequencies, proportions, and percentages (Gau, 2018). Frequency is defined as a simple raw count, whereas proportions show how many times a particular variable appears in a sample in relation to its total size (Gau, 2018). Finally, percentages are used as a standardized form of frequency, ranging from 0 to 100%.

After discussing proportion and percentages, the parameter of rates is introduced, which is often used to show the incidence of a particular factor in 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 cases. The text makes a point that looking at numbers alone makes a poor presentation, so pictures are used to make the data more recognizable and engaging for the audience (Gau, 2018). Graphs and charts aid with enabling others to encompass the message. Pie charts are utilized when there are five or fewer variables to illustrate what part of 100% (or whole pie) belongs to which. Bars are used for categoric variables and proportions. Line graphs are useful for longitudinal data, and histograms can be used for grouped data that does not fit into any of the previous models (Gau, 2018). The author makes a case that to keep a presentation engaging and clear, different kinds of visualizations should be used.

The point the chapter makes is sound, as visualization based on numbers alone is next to impossible and is confusing for the unprepared audience. However, some charts can be equally confusing, especially if they feature terms and variables that are not familiar to the audience. Simplification can achieve understanding but at the risk of simplifying matters that are naturally complicated, resulting in a skewered impression.

Reference

Gau, J. M. (2018). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice (3rd ed.). Sage.

Research and statistics are essential components of the study of criminal justice and criminology. In Chapter Four, Gau (2018) defines the concept of the measures of central tendency and data distribution shapes. The author’s primary argument refers to the importance of averages and data distribution types for criminology researchers and practitioners (Gau, 2018). Indeed, the predictive capability of the measures of central tendency allows for drawing general conclusions and providing understanding about groups of objects or people based on data.

Another point made in the chapter refers to the role of data distribution shapes. The distribution’s nature is critical to evaluate for identifying other descriptive statistics. Furthermore, Gau (2018) explores such terms as the mode, the median, and the mean. In particular, the author highlights the mode’s usefulness for categorical data in contrast to continuous data. According to Gau (2018), the median is more informative, especially for continuous variables, compared to ordinal variables. In turn, another argument emphasizes that the mean can only be calculated with interval or ratio data and is not applicable to categorical variables (Gau, 2018). Understanding the appropriateness of each measure of central tendency is essential since it allows the researcher to apply the relevant tool to analyze the data set. The author identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each measure, which is vital for choosing the right approach for certain types of data.

To conclude, the information provided in the chapter is essential for understanding the measures of central tendency. The evaluation of the middle points in sets of data provides a general basis for assumptions and conclusions, crucial in criminal justice and criminology studies. For instance, statistical procedures can be utilized in observational studies and experiments. In these research types, statistical analysis is performed to analyze data, support a hypothesis, and draw conclusions.

Reference

Gau, J. M. (2018). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice (3^rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

The ability of a country to uphold social control, prevent, and extenuate crime depends on the organization of its criminal justice system. For a criminal justice system to achieve its mandate, it must have specific components, which must coordinate to achieve the overall role of reducing crime.

Further, for a criminal justice system to be democratic and fair in achieve justice for all, its members must follow certain processes in executing their duties. The United States criminal justice system primarily applies a “systems” approach in executing its duties, by using constitutional rules, state, federal, and departmental principles of criminal procedure, the Code of ethics, and bill of rights.

To ensure that the system performs its functions to desired standards, the government controls the criminal justice through three main structures namely the executive, legislative, and judicial. The primary function of the legislature is to define practices considered as crimes, fix sentences for such crimes, and provide monetary assistance to the system. The Judiciary through judges, attorneys, and juries help to make judgments using specific defined rules and principles.

On the other hand, the executive branch is mandated with the role of furnishing the criminal justice system with judges and heads of law-enforcing agencies. Therefore, a criminal justice system is a combination of federal state, and local and public bodies that are interdependent and work together for a common goal (Miller & Gaines, 2008, pp. 3-24).

Components of the Criminal Justice System

Generally, a crime is any act that violates a set of fundamental laws, which govern public practices within a society; whereas, law is system of principles that helps to govern practices in a society. Therefore, laws are there primarily to prevent crime, through ensuring that individual’s practices and actions are within certain fundamental rules. Violation of any set rules is prosecutable and punishable in a court of law, as this is the only way of protecting people’s fundamental rights.

To achieve justice for all; prevent and control the rate of crime, the criminal justice system uses three major components, which the government has mandated with different roles, although they are very interdependent. The first component is police departments. The primary roles of this component include ensuring societies maintain law and order, implementing provisions in criminal law, and providing other security needs to the general public.

For police officers to achieve this role, they closely coordinate with community members and security organizations to apprehend criminals. To ensure that suspected criminals and sufferers of crimes get justice, police officers work closely with prosecutors in investigating crimes and gathering enough evidence, for prosecution purposes.

Evidence gathered from investigations acts as the primary basis of operation of the second component of the criminal justice system. The second component’s (courts) main mandate is to ascertain the criminal responsibility of suspects. Through the use of the juries, judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyer’s expertise and presentations, courts will either acquit or convict individuals of specific criminal charges.

Depending on a court’s verdict, the third component (Corrections) comes into action, if one is found guilty. The most common forms of corrections include parole, house arrests, approves, probation, and a specific jail term that matches with one’s crime. The primary role of corrections is to ensure that a criminal justice system rehabilitates criminals, through punishing them (Hewitt & Regoli, 2009, pp. 13-27).

Criminal Justice Process

To ensure that different components of the criminal justice system perform their duties to the desired standards and to avoid chances of laws enforcing agents violating the fundamental rights of those they are serving, the criminal justice process must go through a series of steps.

The first step in the process is investigation. Investigation involves the process of collecting evidence, identifying the suspect, and conducting searchers using the set procedures and rules. If there is evidence of the crime linking the suspect, the second step that involves arresting the criminal comes into action. Arrests are followed by prosecutions in a district court in the presence of attorneys and a prosecutor.

Depending on the facts of a prosecution procedure, in cases of capital offenses, an indictment by a grand jury is a necessity in ascertaining the amount of evidence to warrant a trial. If there is enough evidence, the sitting judge will arraign the suspect in a court of law fro pretrial. Before commencement of the trial proceedings, a defendant has a right of entering a plea, which is usually followed by plea bargaining, where the accused can accept to plead guilty for consideration of a less heavy punishment.

After plea bargaining, the case goes to trial in the presence of a judge or jury, prosecutor, and defense attorneys. Using the prosecutor’s evidence, the attorney’s defense during post trial; the courts can acquit defendants of all the charges or convict them of criminal offenses, which can be in form of jail terms, fines, probation periods, and community service.

If a defendant is not satisfied with the court rulings, they can file appeals in appellate courts. Depending on the court of appeal’s decision (which can be reversing the case or affirming to the lower court’s decision), the case is closed or returned for retrial. If the case goes back for retrial, the lower courts can re-file or drop the case.

In cases where the courts drop the case, the defendant can go free, but if re-filed, depending on the outcomes of the retrial the courts can acquit or convict defendants of the prescribed criminal offenses (National Centre for Victims of Crime, (n.d), pp. 2-4).

Reference List

Hewitt, J. D., & Regoli, M. R. (2009). Exploring criminal justice system. Massachusetts Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Web.

Miller, L. R., Gaines, L. K. (2008). Criminal justice in action: the core. Florence, Kentucky: Wadsworth Publishing. Web.

National Centre for Victims of Crime. (N.D). The Criminal Justice System. Web.

Hypothesis Testing with Two Categorical Variables: Chi-Square in Criminal Justice and Criminology

Chapter 10 of the textbook provides an overview of the chi-square test of independence. This method provides a valid tool for testing hypotheses based on variables from the same category. This chapter continues with the example of the attitudes towards death penalties. The author explains how a researcher can use this test to prove whether or not men are likely to be in favor of death penalties than women and how education affects the decision.

The text reveals what steps must be taken while using this test to determine relationships between independent and dependent variables. The chi-square test is a vital tool for exploring the relationship between two variables on a subject of dependency, as it allows a researcher to demonstrate a meaningful impact of one variable onto another (Gau, 2018). Therefore, the hypothesis must be stated in a way that can be either proven or disproven by the chi-square test.

However, the author also points out that there are limitations to this method. Gau (2018) explicitly highlights that “statistical significance does not always translate into practical significance” (p. 293). The author points out that this test does not explain the measures of association, which require additional analysis of variables (Gau, 2018). Gau (2018) states that “measures of association offer insight into the magnitude of the differences between groups so that we can figure out how strong the overlap is,” which makes this test an essential step in some cases (p. 292).

In conclusion, the chi-square test of independence must be used as a part of a more extensive analysis that incorporates all practically relevant factors and assesses their value as evidence. Statistical significance is the key to an appropriate application of this method (Gau, 2018). The author provides a precise examination of the test, its applications and further analyses that might stem from the results of the chi-square test.

Hypothesis Testing with Two Population Means or Proportion in Criminal Justice and Criminology

In the eleventh chapter of the textbook, the author examines methods for statistical analysis of differences between variables. Two populations that are linked via a dependent variable must be assessed on the subject of dependency to determine a proper test to ensure the validity of the results (Gau, 2018). The chapter identifies the analytical process and breaks it into several steps necessary for its proper completion.

The examination of variables and their dependencies takes a primary spot in this chapter. Independent variables with no influence on each other, such as genders, can provide a statistically meaningful result that will reveal useful evidence (Gau, 2018). Sometimes, selected variables are interdependent or unequal, which leads to different types of analysis. The author examines the choice of a proper test and the logic behind it in the form of a simple algorithm. Dependent samples, which are mainly matched pairs or repeated measures, It is crucial to analyze variables that are brought into a comparable state, which requires a researcher to decide whether to use a pooled-variance or separate-variance approach (Gau, 2018). Two-population tests provide a meaningful way to pinpoint differences between proportions of independent variables in a sample, which allows researchers to determine many parameters, such as the effect of two treatment programs on recidivism (Gau, 2018).

In conclusion, these tests are critical in numerous situations in criminology, as they provide a valuable tool for the analysis of statistical data that might reveal further implications for consideration. The author shows how the results of various two-population tests are able to prove or disprove hypotheses involving these variables based on their significance (Gau, 2018). This statistical analysis expands the methods of defining the relationships between valuables and enables researchers to compare them accurately.

Reference

Gau, J. M. (2018). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice. SAGE Publications.

Despite accounting for a small population of the world, the US has the highest number of prisoners globally. This difference results from the harsh laws and ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system. Some states, such as Texas, contribute to the high number of prisoners by implementing a wide range of rules and regulations that promote incarceration. Compared to Norway, Texas has harsher sentencing laws, inhumane prison conditions, and punishes more than it should rehabilitate.

First, Texas has harsher sentencing laws that dictate longer prison sentences for minor crimes than Norway. Texas uses the three-strike law, which increases an individual’s minimum sentence if they have a history of felony convictions. Under this law, a person with two or more previous offenses qualifies for an automatic minimum 25-year sentence (Hannaford). This law does not consider the nature of the offenses committed by a defendant. As a result, individuals end up serving life in prison for petty crimes such as stealing a sandwich. Norway, on the other hand, has friendlier sentencing laws for convicts. For example, the maximum sentence in Norway is 30 years and only applies to serious crimes such as some war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These differences in the sentencing laws lead to Texas having high prison populations, whereas Norway’s prisons are less populated.

Second, Texas prisons are more inhuman than Norway’s, which are kindlier. Apart from the strict sentencing laws, Texas has the worst prisons in the US. Despite other states utilizing solitary confinement, numerous elements make Texans stand out from the rest. Notably, whereas prisoners are often held in solitary confinement due to their capital convictions, Texas does not base this practice on crime, security, or discipline (Human Rights Clinic 19). As a result, the number of prisoners under solitary confinement is higher than in other states. Additionally, prisoners in solitary confinement are less likely to access mental health services and contact visits with attorneys and their families, especially those on death row. These conditions differ significantly from Norway’s, which forbids degrading or inhuman treatment of prisoners. Norwegian prisoners enjoy better conditions, with some of them enjoying luxurious prison rooms with a wide range of services such as grocery shops (Luxs Report). These differences make Norwegian prisons superior to Texas in terms of prisoners’ living conditions.

Third, the Texan criminal justice system focuses more on punishment, whereas Norway prioritizes rehabilitation. Punishing prisoners entails housing them in the worst possible conditions with minimal efforts to add value to their wellbeing. On the other hand, rehabilitation values changing the behaviors of prisoners to enable them to meet the demands of the outside world. The differences between these two approaches manifest in the recidivism rates of prisoners. According to Hannaford, most ex-inmates in Texas do not survive for long before committing other crimes and ending up in the prison system again. The wellbeing of Texan prisoners deteriorates as they spend more years in prisons, making them unfit for release. However, the Luxs Report shows that Norwegian prisons focus on changing behaviors, including instilling new skills through education. As a result, while Norwegian prisoners leave as better individuals, some Texan inmates end up worse than when they were imprisoned.

In conclusion, Texas prisoners experience tougher sentences, harsher prison conditions and are less likely to rehabilitate than Norwegians are. From the differences between Texas and Norway in approaching matters of the criminal justice system, there is more to change in Texas to become more effective. Texan sentencing laws, prison conditions, and correction approach do more harm than good to its people. Texas and the US should therefore learn from other countries with low prison populations to improve the wellbeing of the entire population.

Works Cited

Hannaford, Alex. “Serving Life for Stealing a Sandwich.” The Texas Observer, 2020, Web.

Human Rights Clinic. “Designed to Break You: Human Rights Violations On Texas’ Death Row.” 2017.

Luxs Report. “Luxury Prison in Norway – Serving Time with Amenities.” YouTube, 2014.

Gang violence has been studied for decades, which led to the development of various theories concerning the matter. Researchers often see gangs as organizations, but there is still the lack of attention towards such aspects as gang violence, its nature, and peculiarities (Decker, 2000). In his article, Decker (2000) attempts to fill in the gap concerning the areas mentioned above. This paper includes a brief analysis of the article with the focus on its validity and reliability.

The primary purpose of the article in question was to explore “processes and mechanisms” that contributed to the escalation of gang violence as well as its spread (Decker, 2000, p. 160). The researcher tried to answer the question concerning the role of threat in the spread and escalation of violence. Another research question is associated with the role collective behavior plays in the escalation and spread of violence. The key concepts studied were the gang and gang violence.

It is necessary to note that the author provides the conceptual and operational definitions of one of the key concepts (gang violence). Decker (2000) defines gang violence as acts involving weapons use and assault. The author adds that it is retaliatory in nature. As for the operational definition, the central aspects of the classification used are mentioned. It is noted that the acts associated with retaliation, membership, reputation and revenge were included in the study. These definitions can be regarded as effective since the researcher concentrates on the central aspects of gang violence. Researchers agree that gang violence is associated with reputation and membership as well as the extension of some influence on a particular territory (Carlock & Lizotte, 2015). At the same time, the researcher pays specific attention to the threat as an essential element of gang violence. Therefore, it could be possible to include abuse and intimidation in the definition of the concept (gang violence).

When it comes to the validity of the study, it is necessary to consider different types of validity. Face validity shows whether the study measures what it intends to measure (Picardi & Masick, 2013). The face validity of the study in question is high as gang violence is quite a specific term that reflects the phenomenon in question. The content validity of the study is also strong as the study focuses on acts of violence performed by gangs rather than individuals. Therefore, the study manages to focus on the subject-matter of the research. The construct validity is associated with the measurements and methods utilized (Picardi & Masick, 2013). Decker (2000) uses survey questionnaires and interviews to collect data. This method is appropriate as the use of violence in gangs can be measured by people who engage in violent acts. In simple terms, gang members’ views on violence are instrumental in defining the peculiarities of gang violence spread and escalation. Finally, the criterion-related validity is quite strong as well. The author analyzes gang members’ perspectives on their use of violence. Such criteria as the threat and sense of belonging (membership) are appropriate criteria to assess reasons for violent behavior.

The study can also be characterized by a high degree of reliability. Decker (2000) measures gang violence through the analysis of gang members’ participation in different kinds of fights, as well as their reasoning for taking part in such activities. Reliability could be checked with the help of such techniques as test-retest, parallel forms, and internal consistency reliability (Picardi & Masick, 2013). As for the test-retest reliability, it could be possible to ask the same questions to the same participants. The answers are likely to be the same as the participants’ views on their membership, their effort to fit in and prove their worth will remain unchanged. The parallel forms reliability is associated with the use of questionnaires completed by two groups. Items describing gang violence and its spread can be divided into two sets of questions. These questions can be given to different groups, and the correlation is likely to become evident. The internal consistency reliability is associated with the consistency gang members would answer a set of questions concerning gang violence and its escalation and spread. The vast majority of the participants would use similar concepts, values or even words to describe their engagement in violent acts.

Decker (2000) concludes that gang violence is closely related to the concept of collective behavior where members of subgroups use violence as a means of ensuring their sense of belonginess and survival. When the level of violence becomes excessive, members tend to leave the group and form their own gangs characterized by a less significant degree of violence. These findings shed light on the spread of violence. The increase in cases associated with gang violence may mean the shift in the society. It is possible to assume that more and more people are unable to find their place in the community and the society, so they form subgroups that help them feel a part of a world that is clear and acceptable.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that the article in question provides valuable insights into the spread of gang violence. The researcher uses valid and reliable methods to address the research questions. It is clear that the rise of gang violence is associated with the lack of opportunities for people to realize their potential in the society.

References

Carlock, A. L., & Lizotte, A. (2015). Gangs, guns, and violence: Synergistic effects. In S. H. Decker, & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), Voices from the field: Readings in criminal justice research (pp. 178-193). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Decker, S. H. (2000). Collective and normative features of gang violence. In C. Pope, R. Lovell, & S.G. Brandl (Eds.), Voices from the field: Readings in criminal justice research (pp. 160-181). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Picardi, C. A., & Masick, K. D. (2013). Research methods: Designing and conducting research with a real-world focus. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.