Nowadays, the criminal justice system enforcement area faces some major challenges that should be addressed as soon as possible. The key issues associated with the enforcement area of criminal justice include responding to crimes committed by the youth, addressing the needs of victims, preventing wrongful convictions, police misconduct as well as controversial plea bargains, making sure that law enforcement agencies have only lawful access to information, and preventing ineffective sharing of information between agencies.
Furthermore, the changes in social and political life in the country also have a significant impact on the enforcement of criminal justice since there is an increased amount of criminal opportunities that may directly impact the law enforcement itself. Among such are intellectual property crimes, environmental, and biotechnology crimes (Wardlaw, n.d.). Thus, apart from being affected by previously unresolved problems, the criminal justice system now has to deal with crimes, which are based on innovation.
As police misconduct became a significant problem, the enforcement of the criminal justice system will be modified to address bias, prosecute unlawful actions committed by police, and enhance the process of data collection on law enforcement agencies. Prevention of wrongful convictions and questionable plea bargains should also be addressed by law enforcement through not arresting the wrong person and making sure that the plea bargain does not minimize the guilt.
Judiciary Issues
The two judiciary issues that will become prominent in the Criminal Justice System are the sentencing reform and the improvement of criminal procedures. As the current justice system is dealing with overcriminalization and overpopulation in prisons, it is crucial to begin the sentencing reform to make sure that only severe offenses are punished by large sentences. The Sentencing Reform Act of 2015 has already reduced the sentence minimum for drug-related offenses as well as offered judges more discretion in deciding on appropriate sentences while making sure that individuals committing severe crimes do not walk free early (House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 2015).
Achieving improvements in criminal procedures is another problem that should be addressed by the Criminal Justice System since the issues in criminal procedures may often lead to wrongful convictions or false confessions. One of the improvements is associated with the Rapid DNA Act, which allows police stations to conduct rapid DNA analysis for appropriate identification.
Custodial Issues
The two custodial issues that will become prominent in the Criminal Justice System are associated with the application of alternative to incarceration methods and the reforms in the juvenile justice system. Currently, the US heavily relies on imprisonment as the key criminal sanction (American Bar Association, 2008), despite the fact that many countries around the globe prefer choosing new methods. There is a total of 2.3 million prisoners in the US, which means that the judicial system imprisons approximately 24% of the global population of prisoners (American Bar Association, 2008).
Furthermore, around 1.5 million children are currently in prisons; this calls for reform in the Criminal Justice System. Community-based programs and sanctions are useful alternatives to punishment for those offenders who do not pose a threat to society. As to the challenges associated with the juvenile justice system, it is crucial to provide qualified counsel for the youth, remove them from adult jails, reduce ethnic and racial bias, and focus on the prevention of juvenile crime as opposed to locking up children in prisons.
References
American Bar Association. (2008). Criminal justice system improvements. Web.
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. (2015). Criminal justice reform initiative. Web.
Wardlaw, G. (n.d.). The future and crime: Challenges for law enforcement. Web.
The Military Tribunals initiated in 2002 have triggered criticism regarding their violation of several established procedures. The current administration was inclined on the suspension of the proceedings, but instead re-initiated them, introducing several new complications. Currently, the Tribunals violate several human rights, allow for the undue process, and accept the questionable practices of treating the evidence.
The first major violation deals with the rights of the defendant related to the evidence. According to the currently established procedure of most of the states, the accused has the right to gain access to all of the evidence at any time in the process ( Texas Young Lawyers Association and State Bar of Texas 4). The military tribunals override this right. For instance, during the trials of Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, a Saudi accused of war crimes, the prosecution claimed to possess the evidence that was not accessible to the public or the defendant.
The reason given for this restriction was the sensitivity of the information which, once made available, could potentially compromise national security (Flynn par. 4). While this may sound plausible given the character of the information the military cases deal with and the matters at stake, it also means that the defense has no means of properly defending themselves. While this violation can not be characterized as unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly require the disclosure, the federal system and most of the state statutes specify the rule.
However, another highly controversial topic regarding the evidence used in the Tribunals can be deemed unconstitutional. According to the Fourth Amendment, the evidence can not be obtained as a result of the unreasonable search or seizure (Justia par. 4). The Fifth Amendment also specifies the right to remain silent during interrogation, protecting the defendant from self-incrimination. Both amendments effectively protect the accused from coercive interrogation process. Any evidence or confession that falls under suspicion of being obtained with violation of these rights does not have weight in legal proceedings. This, however, is not the case during Military Tribunals.
The case of Omar Khadr features several prominent violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There is strong evidence backed by Khadrs statement that his testimonies were extracted under torture and abuse. The interrogations also were conducted immediately after his imprisonment and did not take into account the life-threatening wounds he sustained only several days prior. One of the interrogators also testified of using the fear up technique by telling Omar stories of the previous prisoners in similar situations being violently raped and murdered (Ridgeway and Casella par. 5).
The latter also comes in conflict with the right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (Justia par. 8). Despite being obtained in violation of at least three human rights, the evidence against Omar Khadr was considered valid in court (Ridgeway and Casella par. 2).
The Military Tribunals also limit the defendants options of using the attorney on the same grounds they limit the disclosure of evidence. The Trial Guide for Military Commissions lists the eligibility for a Secret clearance among the range of requirements for a lawyer that may represent the defendant in court (4). This effectively denies the accused the free choice of attorneys and thus violates the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment (Justia par. 6). While arguably not a direct violation, it still severely limits the freedom of choice.
The third limitation based on the sensitivity of the information involved that disrupts the established proceedings is the possibility of the limited access. Once the presiding officer or the appointed authority decides the discretion is needed to avoid the disclosure of classified information or to protect the physical safety of the participants, he or she has the right to close the proceedings (RCFP par. 5). While the concern is justified, it affects the Freedom of Information and violates the First Amendment.
The Tribunals permit the conviction of the accused after the agreement of the two-thirds of the jury. In the case of Omar Khadr, only seven jury members were required to agree upon the decision, a condition which is unacceptable in the civilian court (Ridgeway and Casella par. 7).
The violations of the due process were further aggravated in 2011 with authorizing the creation of the periodic review boards. These boards were meant to deal with the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay who were prosecuted by the dedicated military commissions or the Federal Court. However, in reality, the prisoners eligible for trial by PRB are numerous (116 men were reported in 2015) ( A Rebuke to Military Tribunals par. 7) and, more importantly, the process turned out to be far slower than predicted.
At the same time, the executive order authorizing the creation of the boards does not specify the time frame of the detention, virtually allowing the process to be stretched indefinitely. In fact, some of the prisoners are held in the facility since its opening 14 years ago. Such conditions are clearly violating the due process and are thus unconstitutional.
Finally, the biggest issue with the Military Tribunals is the accusations of conspiracy. Many of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay faced this charge, which is not considered valid under either the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For instance, al Sharbi was charged with conspiracy to commit murder by an unprivileged belligerent (Flynn par. 9). Under closer inspection, it becomes evident that the charge is not an accusation of murder, or even of the murder attempt.
Instead, al Sharbi was basically accused of considering a murder of the enemy combatants. While such charges have taken place at some point in the American history, specifically during World War II, they are currently unacceptable under other conditions and have triggered counteractions by lawyers, including the chief prosecutor of the military commissions General Mark S. Martins (Savage par. 2). Nevertheless, the charges of conspiracy have not been dropped.
The military commission set up to prosecute aliens as a part of the Military Tribunals is also questionable in terms of legal practices. The commission inevitably violates the bilateral treaties that safeguard the equality of treatment, and may be viewed as discriminating on the basis of national origin. Besides, it is in direct conflict with several points of International Criminal Court, such as the requirement for the U.S. Military Commission members to be judges proficient in criminal law, the possibility of in-camera proceedings, and the acceptance of the indirect evidence in court. However, the ICC procedures are not officially recognized in U.S. and thus have no formal power.
In conclusion, the Military Trials in their current form violate several established criminal justice procedures, such as the choice of attorney, the admission of evidence, and the availability of information, both to the public and to the defendant, among others. Besides, they present a range of complications resulting from disparities with the international criminal court laws and open the possibility for the unethical practices that may potentially compromise the legal proceedings.
It is rather complicated to describe the criminal justice process in the US because it is not consistent and differs in various locations. Still, it involves some general and common elements, which provides an opportunity to describe its peculiarities in total. All in all, they provide the governments with the opportunity to control crime and ensure a decent environment in the city, state, and country. This process is rather long-lasting, and it consists of several administrative procedures. They start with the commitment of a crime and its investigation and end with the defendants opportunity to appeal to the court.
Investigation. It is the initial procedure maintained by the officials after the law was violated. It is held by the police that aim to gather all possible evidence that can help to define the suspect (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt para. 5).
Arrest. Then one can be arrested and taken into custody if the reasonable link with the committed crime is found.
Booking. The administrative record of this person is made to ensure that one is in the system and can be found if needed (Department of Government and Justice Studies para. 16).
Prosecution. The prosecutor considers the case and defines whether the suspect should be charged or not.
Initial appearance. When appearing before a judge for the first time, the suspect can be released because of the lack of evidence or sent further.
Preliminary hearing. During this procedure, all information about the case is considered to determine if a trial can be warranted. The suspect may also dispute the charges at this stage. It can also be held in a form of a grand jury, depending on the state law peculiarities (National Center for Victims of Crime para. 17).
Arraignment. The judge reads the defendant the indictment, and one tells whether he/she is guilty or not.
Trial. Especially when the guilt is not admitted, a jury or a judge listens to the case and considers whether the suspect is really the one who has committed a crime. In this way, it is determined what should be done to the person: whether one deserves punishment or can be released.
Sentencing. Being found guilty, the criminal is then sentenced by a judge. One can be put on probation, sent to prison or just made to pay a fine.
Appeal. The convict has a right to appeal if one considers that the outcome of the case was reasonably wrong. One can refer to some failures in the trial procedure, etc.
Punishment. Depending on the sentence, the convict can be released earlier or serve the complete term (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt para. 15).
All these procedures of the criminal justice process are tightly connected and are always maintained in a particular order, which ensures that the outcome of the crime case is appropriate and reasonable. Of course, the initial step of investigation is extremely important, as it starts the whole process. Without it, the police would not have any possibility to find a suspect and prove that one is guilty (unless this person admits that he/she is responsible and agrees to undertake the punishment).
Investigation triggers all other involved agencies and creates the case, which is to be considered and solved. Even though its significance cannot be denied, the procedure of a trial seems to be more influential one. During the trial, professionals prove whether the suspect is guilty or not (Offices of the United States Attorneys para. 1). Thus, here the outcome of the case can is decided. One can be released or pleaded guilty and then sentenced. In this way, it is identified during the trial if the whole process had sense and was successful or all resources were wasted in vain.
It may take weeks or even months to reach the procedure of the trial because this step requires a lot of other tasks to be accomplished. The prosecutor and the attorney of the suspect should be well aware of all peculiarities of the case they deal with and should have enough evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of the suspect. If one is likely to be sentenced to more than half a year, the trial usually involves the jury; if not, it is often held by a judge only ( The Criminal Justice Process para. 46).
In this way, the trial seems also to be a checking procedure, which ensures that witness testimony and evidence are appropriate. In its framework, the sides have an opportunity to share their points of view, which allows to see the situation from different perspectives at the same time. As a result, the biases are likely to be reduced. While previous procedures maintained after the investigation are mainly focused on the officials ideas, the jury, and the judge make their mind when thinking as a defendant also. Moreover, the trial with a jury prevents the power excess, which not necessary but may be present during the previous procedures (The National Judicial College 1).
The fact that the trial presupposes the involvement of several people in the decision-making tends to prove its authoritativeness and appropriateness. As the verdict is announced, all officials who were involved in the criminal justice process can receive a proof that their work was maintained decently, and the victim or ones family can be satisfied.
Thus, the procedure of the trial seems to be the most important one in the whole criminal justice process. It gathers the outcomes of all previous stages and reveals the expected outcome of the case.
Works Cited
Department of Government and Justice Studies. The Criminal Justice Process, 2016. Web.
The purpose of this paper is to get a better understanding of issues related to wrongful convictions. Peer-reviewed articles and books on this subject matter will be reviewed and analyzed. The most attention is devoted to such aspects as preventive measures. Suggestions that could help to resolve current problems are also provided.
Individual Project
Introduction
It is imperative to mention that the prominence of wrongful convictions in a topic that is frequently discussed by scholars and has led to many disagreements. Many investigators and judges were incompetent in some situation in the past, and it has caused many tragedies. The judicial system in the United States is focused on the improvement of current approaches because its weaknesses are recognized.
Discussion
One of the recent studies suggests that close to 4,1 percents of individuals sentenced to death are innocent (Gross, OBrien B., Hu, & Kennedy, 2014). The real numbers cannot be known, and it is nearly impossible to take all of the factors into account, but such figure is statistically significant and should not be overlooked. Another research suggests that the number of such incidents is approximately ten thousand each year in the U.S. (Huff & Killias, 2010). It is possible to argue with the instruments utilized to conduct a study, but such results also should be acknowledged. The situation becomes particularly problematic when death penalties are involved, and it is an enormous problem from the perspective of ethics. Moreover, publics trust in the judicial system is also affected. Results of one of the studies indicate that an enormous percentage of participants believe that the system needs to be reformed (Zalman, Larson, & Smith, 2012).
The complaints are justified because some of the cases are truly shocking, and the lack of competence demonstrated is quite worrying. The primary issue that should not be overlooked is that investigators are not punished in case of misconduct. Moreover, their rewards are dependent on the number of cases that they manage to solve, and convictions also play a vital role (Jones, 2012). Therefore, this leads to a particular kind of behavior. Also, many individuals are forced to plead guilty because the punishment that they have to deal with if they lose a trial is enormous. Eyewitness identification procedure needs to be altered because it has many weaknesses. Some complications occur during a custodial interrogation, and an individual may make inappropriate claims when being restrained. Such aspects as communication barriers should be respected, and every person should be provided with necessary information regarding their rights. Background information collected by offender processing units also can be vital, and must be analyzed.
Innocence Protection Act of 2011 is crucial, and its primary objective is to ensure that innocent people are not affected. The introduction of new technologies played a vital role, and the use of DNA testing has improved the accuracy of such courts significantly (Siegel & Worrall, 2012). The access to this technique is vital because it may help to produce new evidence that could have an impact on the case. The presumption of innocence is also paramount and protects individuals that did not commit the crime (Schmalleger, 2012). Investigators are trying to determine if a persons behavior is reasonable. A rational choice theory is often applied, and it is focused on potential benefits that could have motivated an offender. Social learning approach is also appropriate, and associated people should be interviewed (Akers, 2013). However, the current system needs to be improved, and various perspectives should be acknowledged. For instance, every citizen may request additional testing if he or she believes that he was unfairly prosecuted. Communication patterns between criminal justice institutions should be improved. A court system is the most problematic component that needs to be revised because it is responsible for most of the decisions. Barriers that could prevent appeals also should be eliminated, and it is complicated because of correctional agencies that treat views all individuals that entered the facilities as guilty. Competence levels of attorneys should be assessed quite often to ensure that their behavior is appropriate, and they are aware of latest policies. A person that has proved his or her innocence should go through an acquittal. Charges must be dismissed without any delay, and compensations should be provided.
It is suggested that torture is the primary method utilized to get confessions in China, and this situation is unacceptable. Several provisions were quite helpful, but other alterations are also required (Jiahong, 2014). The situation in Canada is also quite problematic because of the lack of consistency across all the regions. One of the aspects that should be highlighted is that the investigation of related claims is only conducted by the government, and it would be reasonable to involve an independent agency. A twenty percent rate suggested by one of the studies is not acceptable, and much more attention should be devoted to accuracy (Grossman & Roberts, 2011). The problem also affects the United Kingdom, and it is not surprising because appropriate measures are not taken in some cases. For instance, one of the studies suggests that Criminal Case Review Commission did not use DNA testing on numerous occasions to minimize the expenses. The authors suggest that the justice system should utilize all available techniques to guarantee the reliability of convictions (Naughton & Tan, 2010).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to state that wrongful convictions are problematic across the globe. The primary reason is that some of the techniques are quite outdated, and policymakers are reluctant to make significant changes because the system has been established over many years. However, it is entirely possible that the number of such cases is going to reduce in the future if appropriate policies are introduced and modern technologies are utilized.
References
Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gross, S. R., OBrien B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7230-7235.
Grossman, M. G., & Roberts, J. V. (2011). Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader (4th ed.). Toronto, CA: Nelson Education.
Huff, C. R., & Killias, M. (2010). Wrongful conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Jiahong, H. (2014). Wrongful convictions and exclusionary rules in China. Frontiers of Law in China, 9(3), 490-505.
Jones, J. A. (2012). Wrongful conviction in the American judicial process: History, scope, and analysis. Student Pulse, 4(8), 1-3.
Naughton, M., & Tan, G. (2010). The Right to Access DNA Testing by Alleged Innocent Victims of Wrongful Convictions in the United Kingdom? The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 14(4), 326-345.
Schmalleger, F. J. (2012). Criminal justice today (12th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Essentials of criminal justice (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Zalman, M., Larson, M., & Smith, B. (2012). Citizens attitudes toward wrongful convictions. Criminal Justice Review, 37(1), 51-69.
A correction system is one that sets high goals but nonetheless has problems that must be solved. The author of the article wants to familiarize the public with the problems of the correctional judicial system, its setbacks, the current state of affairs, and solutions for these issues. The attention is focused on the fact that even though the system is designed to lower the recidivism rate and help inmates in the future, rehabilitate, it is still ineffective.
One of the problems is the return rate of prisoners, which is increasing. The population of prisons is higher than ever, reaching 168,350 inmates, even though the cost attributed to the corrections is significant$7 billion and still 66% of those released return within the next three years.
Another issue is that the system is very political and confusing, making it hard for politicians to come up with a clear-cut solution. Rehabilitation is also not working, as 25% of inmates reported having a drug or alcohol problem. The prison society itself is detrimental since the gangs formed inside usually continue their existence outside.
One of the solutions offered is to use more discretion in the release of the responsible inmates so that they feel rewarded and set an example for those behaving negatively. In order to not waste resources, apply more precise parole supervision for those who really need ithigh-risk criminals. Also to use a harsher punishment for those who commit a crime during their parole or probation, instead of treating it as an administrative violation. An important solution is to provide programs that focus on rehabilitation and assimilation back into society, programs like education, help with substance abuse, and preparation for jobs outside of prison.
The challenging fact about this article is that even though the population of prisons is high, with 6.5 inmates per officer, compared to the nations 4.5, the escape rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Corrections officers are well paid compared to the rest but still, there is a 20% vacancy in staff. It is a known fact that the system is directed to filter out the most serious offenders but the surprising statistic is that only 5% of all crimes committed receive a prison sentence. The author of the article has clearly stated the problems of the system and solutions. The reward system for the inmates who behave responsibly is a good idea; it benefits the judicial system and the inmates themselves. The proposal to have better supervision of those who are on parole is a very effective solution. Inmates who are used to living in prison often dont know how to act and where to start in society, not to mention the societys stigma and prejudice towards the inmates, which makes their implementation back into society extremely difficult. More serious punishment for those who re-commit during their parole is definitely needed. It is outrageous that someone who has done wrong and is given a fair chance abuses it.
Rehabilitation and proper programs are the best ideas. Very often people who commit crimes are unaware of another life, without crime, depression, and violence. They are unable to imagine how to make a living without resorting to crime because they have grown up in this criminal culture and know no other way of life.
Education and job training are very important for every human being, no matter where they are.
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.
What do you think about a career? Briefly explain the importance of the career for modern society.
Introduction
A successful career is one of the most important aspects of the life of any individual who wants to play a significant role in the functioning and evolution of a certain community. Moreover, it often serves as one of the major landmarks that impact a person and establishes his/her relations with the surrounding people.
For this reason, I believe that criminal justice career could help me to develop my personal and professional qualities and become successful. Therefore, it could be rather challenging, but its importance could hardly be overestimated.
Body
The purpose of the presentation: The given presentation is devoted to the most important aspects related to the criminal justice career and role specialists of this sort play in any community (Toch & Magurie, 2014).
The unique importance of criminal justice specialists. The modern legal system depends on people who chose criminal justice as their occupation greatly. They create the basis for the preservation of order and inevitability of punishment for lawbreakers and other offenders.
We should perfectly realize the fact that our citizens could feel secured because of the efficient functioning of the legal system (Justice & Meares, 2014). Besides, many people are working in a given sphere. Thus, criminal justice majors contribute to the increased efficiency of the given sector and improved outcomes.
Outline the main tasks of a criminal justice specialist
A person who chooses this occupation as his/her career should perfectly realize the fact that numerous complex tasks should be accomplished to attain success and preserve justice.
Explain the main reasons for the appearance of my interest in the given sphere
I believe that the complexity of tasks and challenges that a specialist of this sort faces contributes to the unique importance of the given career. The work of a criminal justice specialist might be rather difficult sometimes; however, the security of close people, citizens, and preservation of the public peace are the best rewards for a person who chooses this occupation.
Modern demands to the criminal justice specialist
The above-mentioned complexity of tasks preconditions the existence of specific demands to any specialist working in the given sphere. He/she should incorporate such qualities as competence, deep knowledge, outstanding personal and analytic skills combined with the readiness to face injustice (Edelstein, 2016).
Conclusion
Altogether, we should admit the great importance and complexity of criminal justice career. An individual who wants to work in the given sphere should be ready to overcome different challenges and contribute to the increased efficiency of the legal system. As for me, I feel that I am interested in the given issue and want to engage in it.
References
Edelstein, A. (2016). Rethinking conceptual definitions of the criminal career and serial criminality. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 62-71. Web.
Justice, B., & Meares, T. (2014). How the criminal justice system educates citizens. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 159-177. Web.
Toch, H., & Magurie, K. (2014). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related topics. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 424-444. Web.
Many leaders and policymakers in the United States acknowledge that the countrys criminal justice system faces numerous challenges, including mass incarceration, erroneous incarcerations, racial disparities throughout the process, the school-to-prison pipeline, and increased recidivism rates. Members of the public are worried since the existing zero-tolerance programs and retributive sentencing have triggered numerous problems in this country.
Such developments have compelled American citizens, politicians, and human rights coalitions to offer evidence-based measures to transform the situation. The purpose of this paper is to present, define, and propose restorative justice as the best model for addressing the challenges affecting the effectiveness of the United States criminal justice process.
Restorative Justice
Meaning
The gaps associated with the United States criminal justice and judicial systems have led to superior concepts for addressing the problems of crime. The term restorative justice refers to an evidence-based model that focuses on the most appropriate initiatives to rehabilitate and empower offenders and make them successful members of society (Pavelka, 2016). This initiative is achievable through constant reconciliation with the identified victims and all other community members. The guiding aspects of restorative justice have managed to deliver desirable results in different working environments and learning institutions in the United States.
Implementation
Restorative justice takes a simple approach to initiate or implement. Those involved will arrange for a conference whereby the offender and victim meet regularly. Letters and videos are resourceful when such individuals are unable to interact. Since each society has its unique expectations, norms, and challenges, the model creates the best opportunity for providing culturally sensitive and personalized services to all stakeholders (Wood, 2015). Such a model can deliver better results since all persons will feel confident, engaged, empowered, and comfortable.
The proposed option is informed by this principle: crime is capable of harming human beings and any form of justice should be aimed at repairing this kind of injury (Curtis, 2016). Another guideline is that all persons affected by different offenses should be part of the resolution process. A neutral venue is essential to facilitate forgiveness and make it possible for the facilitator to record positive results. From this analysis, it is evident that implementing restorative justice supports a deviation from the standard procedures of the criminal justice system (Karp & Frank, 2016). This initiative will empower more people and societies, thereby making it possible for them to overcome most of the above challenges affecting different citizens.
Proposed Implementation Method
Participants and stakeholders can consider various approaches to implement restorative justice in their respective regions. Some of them include community engagement, promotion and presentation of superior guidelines, the involvement of judicial services and experts, and consideration of cultural aspects. This section identifies the most appropriate strategy that is capable of making this practice part of the judicial system (Beckett & Kartman, 2016). This initiative follows four key steps that are applicable and evidence-based.
The first one is to formulate guidelines for empowering facilitators and monitoring offenders. Such attributes will be presented to become part of the entire system. The second phase is building capacity through continuous training (Beckett & Kartman, 2016). This should be done locally or nationally depending on the targeted region. The third stage is ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of the nature and importance of restorative justice (Pavelka, 2016). The last step is to implement the proposed concept of restorative justice and meet the expectations of the greatest number of community members and offenders.
Sociologists propose or use various theories and ideologies to explain why communities should function efficiently, create the best environment for empowering all citizens, and address challenges that might emerge. Experts in this field have gone to consider the current relationships existing between the state and its citizens and the relevance of creating policies that can serve people instead of victimizing them (Pavelka, 2016).
Although no standard or recognizable theory is describing the relevance of restorative justice, sociologists focus on various societal problems and propose strategies that can improve peoples lives and experiences.
The traditions of criminal justice have informed the current direction or movement towards restorative justice. For example, Karp and Frank (2016) indicate that this practice is a response to acts of genocide, gross violations of human rights, transitional justice in post-conflict societies, and the repairing of historical injustices such as slavery (p. 51). This assertion explains why there is a need for populations and countries to embrace the power of restorative justice. Such an initiative will ensure that citizens who have faced discrimination within the criminal justice system record positive experiences or outcomes.
Within the past two decades, learning institutions and workplaces have benefited from this idea of restorative justice. Many students and employees have managed to address specific issues and challenges affecting them. They have also presented superior solutions to most of the problems affecting performance (Beckett & Kartman, 2016). Using this knowledge, some sociologists have indicated that restorative justice is applicable in the wider criminal justice system to meet the needs of more people and make it easier for them to achieve their goals in life.
Different scholars in the field of criminology present evidence-based guidelines to ensure that the United States reform their policies aimed at providing judicial services to different citizens. Both left and right wings continue to propose similar ideas since they are capable of minimizing all forms of discrimination. They can also deal with the predicament of crime and do away with punitive measures associated with the current criminal justice system (Karp & Frank, 2016). Consequently, more Americans will achieve their potential and eventually lead high-quality lives.
The restorative justice movement has become a superior model for the United States to record evidence-based practices and eventually create a new model for tackling crime. In different states, legislators and administrators have proposed new approaches for pursuing juvenile justice goals or agendas (Beckett & Kartman, 2016). Such initiatives revolve around the implementation of restorative policies.
Consequently, it has been possible for government agencies to balance the unique needs of all offenders, community members, and victims. Such measures continue to address the gaps catalyzed by wrongdoings and delinquent acts (Karp & Frank, 2016). When more American societies embrace this movement, chances are high that a new program will emerge whereby the government will find it easier to address the challenge of crime.
The other aspect many sociologists present whenever supporting the power and importance of restorative justice is that of race relations. If implemented effectively, the RJ movement can promote partnerships among ethnic groups across this country (Karp & Frank, 2016). Such measures have the potential to decrease disparities in the wider criminal justice system. The final result is that the country will address historical injustices and any form of marginalization that has existed in the United States for many years.
From the above discussion, it is agreeable that there is adequate evidence to support the role and importance of restorative justice. Nonpartisan individuals and associations will embrace the idea since they can overcome all issues associated with punitive practices. The move will minimize cases of inequality and support the delivery of exemplary support to all wrongdoers instead of convicting them (Curtis, 2016).
This approach will create a superior strategy that addresses the problem of congestion in American courts, improves the speed of justice delivery, and empowers more citizens to achieve their potential. Unfortunately, researchers are unable to predict the future of this countrys criminal justice system since different groups do not appreciate the importance of restorative approaches. For example, Wood (2015) asserts that such measures will never minimize the problem of incarceration. Sociologists and experts in this field should, therefore, present evidence-based ideas and concepts to support restorative justice and tackle most of the issues many citizens encounter.
Conclusion
The discussions and conceptual framework presented above have revealed that restorative justice is a powerful model that can transform and improve the nature of Americas criminal justice system. This initiative is supported by evidence-based practices that have delivered numerous benefits in different learning institutions and companies. According to the described theoretical concepts, restorative justice will overcome most of the challenges many citizens experience in this country. This new approach will promote the engagement of different stakeholders, reduce the negative implications of crime, and eventually empower Americans with diverse backgrounds to achieve their potential.
After her arrest, Johnson is charged with numerous offenses against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), including trafficking, production, possession (drugs, substances, things, suspected property, etc) and permitting the use of place. She is also charged with manufacturing offenses against the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (s50), and against the Criminal Code 1899 (s340(1)(b) serious assault). Shortly after her arrest, she is brought before a court and makes an application for bail.
Johnson knows that the evidence against her in relation to most of the charges is strong. Johnson decides to plead guilty after hearing the prosecution evidence at the committal hearing. Her lawyer negotiates with the prosecution about the exact charges to be included in the indictment and eventually her case is committed to the Supreme Court for arraignment and sentence.
Whether the court should grant Johnson bail or not
In my opinion, I think that Johnson should be granted bail, in spite of the numerous cases against her. The Bail Act 1980 states clearly the several conditions under which a defendant may be granted bail. The court has to consider several conditions before granting bail. For example, the seriousness of the case in question is a factor to be considered. If the court finds that the defendant has been supplying drugs to minors, the mentally handicapped, to persons under rehabilitation, or to people who have no knowledge that they were consuming drugs, under these circumstance, the crime is considered grievous and bail may not be granted. Otherwise, the court may grant bail even without the defendant depositing money as security. It would largely depend on the seriousness of the case (Mirko and Kenneth 158). In the case of Johnson, we are not told if she was supplying the drugs to minors or mentally challenged persons and neither do we have any evidence that the drug users never knew what they were consuming. The assumption here is that of a willing buyer vs. willing seller and as such, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail.
Secondly, if in the opinion of the court, a defendant is seen to endanger the lives of others or will interfere with the evidence if granted bail, then the court will not grant bail. The welfare of the public is paramount and always given a lot of weight when deciding to grant bail or not. Since in this case we are not given any evidence that Johnson would pose a security problem to members of the public or will interfere with the evidence, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail. All the evidence gathered is with the police and Johnson will not in any way interfere with it.
The act also says that whenever it is not practicable to obtain sufficient information for purposes of making a decision as to whether to grant bail or not due to lack of time, the defendant may be remanded without bail, until such time as when the court has the time. If Johnson, for instance, was brought to court late in the afternoon, she could be remanded until the following day. In this case, we are not told whether the court was sitting late in the afternoon and the assumption is that it was early in the morning and therefore Johnson should be granted bail. Furthermore, the courts should always have ample time to decide if to grant bail or not before the end of any day.
The strength of evidence against Johnson will also determine if the court will grant her bail. From the case, we are told there is strong evidence against her. Despite this, the background of the defendant will also determine whether she will be successful in applying for bail. We are not told the history and circumstances or the environment that Johnson is in, or whether she has a criminal record, or not. Since there is no other criminal record in the past, I am of the opinion that Johnson should be granted bail.
Possible differences indiscretion about bail if Johnson was already on bail and awaiting trial for another indictable offense
Johnsons case would be totally different if she was already on bail. The Bail Act 1980 subsection 16(3) states clearly the circumstances under which the court may refuse to grant bail. If the defendant were already on bail, and found to have committed the same offenses, she would not be granted bail again. If Johnson were already out on bail, she would be remanded straight away until her case is heard and determined in court.
The Case of Macintosh
Macintosh is charged with trafficking, supply, and possession offenses both against Queensland and Commonwealth Acts (Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). He is also charged with an offense of serious assault (s340 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)) for stamping on the arresting police officers foot. He is released on bail upon his own undertaking (s11 Bail Act 1980).
An ex-officio indictment
According to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, Ex- officio indictment is a situation where even if no committal hearing has taken place or if a magistrate has found at a committal hearing that there is insufficient evidence to put a defendant on trial, the director of public prosecution may in exceptional case, file a special indictment (called ex-official indictment) against a person and that person must then stand trial in the normal manner in the district or supreme court.
Because of his confession, the evidence against Macintosh is quite strong. Prior to his committal hearing, his rather inexperienced lawyer advises him to consent to the prosecution proceeding by way of an ex-officio indictment. His matter is listed in the Supreme Court for trial.
Whether it would have been more beneficial for Macintosh to have a committal hearing or not
To some extent it would be more beneficial for Macintosh to plead guilty to his case rather than denying and allowing the case to drag on for long, sometimes for several months. In a committal hearing both the defendant and the prosecutor are allowed to express themselves, the prosecution have to provide strong evidence linking the defendant to the crimes. On the other hand, the defendant is allowed to defend himself against the allegations of the prosecution (Moles para. 3). Macintosh is sure the prosecutor has strong evidence against him and therefore it does not help much to continue with the committal hearing, which could drag on for months or even years. By admitting to his case, this could convince the magistrate that he is a reformed person and therefore get a lenient sentence. Although he is facing different charges of possession of guns, trafficking and assault, all of which carry severe sentence, by accepting the guilt of all these offences means that he is remorseful of his behavior. The law always assumes the defendant innocent until proven guilty, if Macintosh goes on denying the charges, when finally the ruling is made, the sentence could be severe. By pleading guilty does help.
According to Hedgecock versus the Republic 29th September, 2007 in the Darwin Supreme Court, Hedgecock was charged with unlawfully cultivating cannabis; this is a crime with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Hedgecock finally received a fully suspended nine months imprisonment, mainly because he pleaded guilty to the charges. Besides, he was found to have cooperated fully with the police, had good work history and respected by his employer and had good prospects of rehabilitation too. The judge observed that he had not intended to use the drug for commercial purposes (Kenny 185). Although pleading guilty to a charge may be helpful, there are other factors that are taken into consideration in determining the case, the history and the behavior of the defendant at the time of arrest and thereafter will play a very critical role in the final judgment. Pleading guilty is not automatic that it will be helpful to the defendant. Macintosh stamping on the foot of the arresting police officer is a fact that he may have resisted arrest. Also since Macintosh is facing multiple charges seems to imply that he has a criminal tendency. Pleading guilty to charges may help Macintosh to get a lenient sentence.
Works Cited
Bagaric, Mirko and Arenson, Kenneth J. Criminal Law in Australia: Cases and Materials. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Kenny, Graham. An Introduction to Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia. Australia: Lexis Nexis, 2008. Print.
Moles, Roberts. Independence and Accountability of the Director of Public
Prosecutions: A Comparative Survey (n.d.). 2011. Web.
Descriptive research (usually quantitative) focuses on describing certain characteristics of the target population. It does not explain the origins of these characteristics, or any other causational links (Cozby & Bates, 2015). Descriptive studies are often useful for finding out what currently exists, what the situation is, or for categorizing something.
Descriptive research can be applied to a research project to comprehend the current situation. For instance, a descriptive approach needs to be taken if one wishes to find out how many policemen there are is a specific county and what their rank division is (i.e., what percentage of recruits, deputy sheriffs, master deputies, corporals, etc., there are).
Correlational
Similarly to descriptive research, correlational studies (quantitative) investigate certain characteristics of the target population; however, they also examine the correlations between these characteristics. Correlational research does not permit making inference about causal relationships (Cozby & Bates, 2015).
Such studies can be applied to a project by helping explore the association between measured phenomena. For example, the correlation between the number of imprisoned individuals and the number of crimes in different states can be investigated. This will allow for finding out, e.g., with which change in the number of crimes a 1-unit change in the number of prisoners is associated. However, this will not permit concluding that, e.g., more prisoners cause more crime, or that more crime always causes an increase in the number of prisoners.
(Quasi-)Experimental
(Quasi-)experimental studies are quantitative studies in which the causal relationship between several variables is investigated. For this purpose, the independent variable(s) are manipulated, and the resulting change in the dependent variables is measured, while all the other important conditions are held constant.
(Quasi-)experimental studies feature control groups. In experimental studies, the assignment of participants to control and experimental groups is random. In quasi-experimental studies, however, the assignment to groups is not random; also, some external conditions might not be well-controlled (Cozby & Bates, 2015). It is noteworthy that (quasi-)experiments are often difficult to implement due to the need to satisfy numerous requirements (isolated environment, appropriate participants, ethical reasons, etc.).
(Quasi-)experimental studies can be used in a project to investigate causation between phenomena. For instance, the impact of new methods of crime prevention on crime rates can be checked via an experimental study. The baseline levels of crime should be measured; then, in some randomly selected areas (experimental group), new methods should be implemented, whereas, in the other areas (control group), the old methods should still be used. All the areas should be homogenous for potential confounders. Crime rates should be measured in both types of areas and compared. This will allow for assessing the impact of new crime prevention methods on crime rates.
Phenomenological
Phenomenological studies (qualitative) investigate peoples perceptions and experiences of particular situations or phenomena. For this purpose, in-depth interviews (often semi-structured) are performed with several participants (e.g., 10-20), and recorded. Then, the gathered data is processed, and conclusions are drawn; one method to do so is coding, which permits finding common themes and issues in the data (Creswell & Poth, 2013).
Phenomenological research can be useful in projects where it is needed to comprehend the opinions and experiences of people. For instance, it is possible to conduct phenomenological research with criminals or delinquents of a certain category to understand their driving motives, thus allowing for solving similar crimes in the future, or for preventing such crime by eliminating the causes of criminal intentions.
Case Study
Case studies are qualitative studies examining a very small sample of participants (e.g., 1-3 participants) in an in-depth manner. This permits conducting a detailed investigation of the phenomenon in question, its relationships to other phenomena, etc. (Creswell & Poth, 2013).
Case studies may be used in various projects for instance, to examine the potential impact of some innovation on a single subject before investigating it on a larger sample (a pilot study). For example, the impact of a behavioral intervention on 1-3 criminals with mental disabilities may be examined via a case study before implementing that intervention or testing it on a larger scale (Pritchard et al., 2016).
Applying Research Methods to a Hypothesis
The hypothesis will be as follows: Implementing stricter weapon regulations allows for reducing homicide and suicide rates.
Correlational Study
To conduct a correlational study to check the proposed hypothesis, it is possible to gather data on homicide and suicide rates in different areas with varying degrees of the strictness of weapon regulations. It will be needed to classify weapon regulations using a categorical scale (e.g., strict, moderate, and non-strict). Then, it will be possible to assess the association between different levels of strictness and homicide and suicide rates over a certain period, as well as the association between different levels of strictness and the number of suicides over that period. This will allow for supporting or rejecting the provided hypothesis (although it will be impossible to infer causal relationships).
Quasi-Experimental Study
To test the proposed hypothesis, it will be required to measure the baseline level of suicide and homicide, e.g., over 2 years in several counties in a state where weapon regulations are non-strict. After that, it will be needed to make weapon regulations stricter, but only in some of these counties. Then, it will be required to measure the new levels of homicide and suicide in each of the two types of counties and compare them (while taking into account the baseline levels of suicide and homicide). This will allow for supporting or rejecting the hypothesis. It should be noted, however, that such a study will be very difficult due to practical reasons.
References
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2015). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pritchard, D., Graham, N., Penney, H., Owen, G., Peters, S., & Mace, F. C. (2016). Multi-component behavioural intervention reduces harmful sexual behaviour in a 17-year-old male with autism spectrum disorder: A case study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(3), 368-378.