Category: Justice

Pretrial justice initiatives are an essential aspect of the international criminal law. While the necessity of developing pretrial justice may be a point of disagreement in certain cases, studies conducted by the Arnold Foundation (LJAF) yielded interesting results. It was demonstrated that pretrial motions have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial, including the sentence length, as well as on the rate of criminal activity before and after the conclusion of the trial.

Impact of Pretrial Detention

The studies conducted by the Arnold Foundation have shown that pretrial detention has a direct influence on the outcome of the trial (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 3). It was demonstrated that pretrial detention is related to the probability of a jail or prison sentence, as well as to the length of the sentence. Two studies were carried out, collecting the data from the federal and state courts.

In the state courts, the likelihood of a jail sentence increased over four times with detention prior to the trial, and over three times in the case of a prison sentence. The length of the incarceration increased as well: nearly three times for the jail sentence, and over two times for the prison sentence.

Based on the statistical data collected from the federal courts, the following correlations were made. The release of the defendants prior to the trial was associated with shorter sentences. This correlation proved valid even in the case of the defendants, who refused to comply with the release conditions, thereby voiding their release. Nonetheless, the defendants, who were detained without release, received significantly lengthier sentences than the abovementioned categories. The authors of the Arnold Foundation Report claim that the number of sentences has increased ten times since 1980, which is a substantial burden on the tax system (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 4).

However, other studies provide slightly different results. Sacks and Ackerman (2014) claim that pretrial detention has a considerable influence on the length of the sentence, whereas the likelihood of incarceration remains unaffected by the pretrial motions (p. 1). Nevertheless, Lee (2014) claims that the probability of conviction is much higher in the case of the defendants who were not released before the trial (p. 1).

Unknown Costs of Pretrial Detention

The authors of the LJAF report question the efficaciousness of the criminal justice system, as well as its commitment to the primary purpose of the system  protection of society through crime prevention and crime rate reduction. The second phase of the study is devoted to the purpose of establishing whether the existing system actually contributes to reduction of the crime rates.

In the course of the study, the cases of the low-risk defendants were subject to analysis. It was demonstrated that the probability of commission of new crimes by the low-risk defendants held in detention prior to the trial was much higher than the low-risk defendants who were released. The results applied not only to the duration of the trial but also to the period of several years after its conclusion. Statistics for high-risk defendants showed no correlation between the pretrial detention and higher crime rate (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 4). Therefore, in order to ensure public safety, pretrial detention should be employed in the case of the high-risk defendants.

The authors of the report emphasize that the lack of proper risk assessment system is the cause of the problem. Pretrial risk-assessment instruments are critical for identifying the low-, moderate-, and high-risk defendants. Studies are conducted to develop the assessment tools for the purposes of distinguishing between three levels of risk in defendants. According to Fazel, Singh, Doll, and Grann (2012), risk-assessment instruments, which were studied, were promising concerning the identification of the low-risk defendants (p. 46). However, distinguishing between moderate- and high-risk defendants requires further research.

The detention time was explored as well. Based on the data analysis, a correlation was established between a longer time spent in detention and a significantly worse pretrial crime rate.

The probability of committing new crimes by the low-risk defendants was increased by 40 percent after three to four days spent in detention (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 4). The crime rate of low-risk defendants, who spent more than 30 days in pretrial detention, was substantially higher than the low-risk defendants, who were detained for less than a day. Moreover, increased detention time correlated with an increased crime rate of the low-risk defendant over the two-year period upon the conclusion of the trial (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 5). The study conducted by Oleson, Lowenkamp, Wooldredge, VanNostrand, and Cadigan confirmed the correlation between pretrial detention and the probability of a prison sentence (2014, p. 22).

Effect of Pretrial Supervision

The lack of efficient assessment tools for identifying the necessary type of pretrial supervision entails the need of further research on the matter. The LJAF study was based on data collected on supervised and unsupervised defendants. The results of the study demonstrated that the supervised moderate- risk defendants failed to appear before court less frequently than the moderate-risk defendants who were unsupervised. In the case of high-risk defendants, 33 percent was established and 38 percentage regarding the middle-risk defendants. However, the authors of the study emphasize that the data on low-risk defendants lacks consistency, thereby demonstrating that the correlation between the supervision and the missed court date is not established with certainty.

Moreover, over six months of pretrial supervision showed the decreased probability of commission of new crimes prior to the trial by 22 percent (Pretrial Criminal Justice Research, 2013, p. 6). However, the authors note that the collected data is not sufficiently conclusive concerning the model of supervision. The only consistent information this phase of study provided was that the supervision before the trial had a definite influence on crime reduction and resulted in a lower probability of a missed court date.

Wiseman (2013) suggests the introduction of an electronic monitoring system (p. 1404) as a valid alternative to detention measures. It would increase cost-effectiveness and overall efficiency of pretrial supervision. According to Wiseman (2013), certain studies of recidivism rates demonstrate the decreased failure statistics by 30 percent in comparison with other methods of supervision (p. 1403). The author acknowledges the potential objection to the monitoring system, i. e. the issue of privacy. However, it is emphasized that the current conditions of pretrial detention do not ensure the defendants individual privacy (Wiseman, 2013, p. 1344).

Conclusion

The LJAF study aimed at exploring the connection between pretrial detention, court decision, and the crime rate reduction. The length of detention was established to be connected to the likelihood of committing new crimes by the middle- and low-risk defendants. Pretrial motions were revealed as an important factor in the courts decision, affecting both the probability of receiving a sentence, as well as its length. It was determined that over six months of pretrial supervision can lead to a crime reduction before and after the conclusion of the trial. Due to the need of conducting more research in this area, the obtained correlations are characterized as observational, as opposed to causal. Nonetheless, the collected data provides a foundation for further research.

References

Fazel, S., Singh, J. P., Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 345(1), 46-92.

Lee, J. (2014). To detain or not to detain? Using propensity scores to examine the relationship between pretrial detention and conviction (Doctoral thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD). Web.

Oleson, J. C., Lowenkamp, C. T., Wooldredge, J., VanNostrand, M., & Cadigan, T. P. (2014). The sentencing consequences of federal pretrial supervision. Crime & Delinquency, 21(1), 22-57. Web.

Pretrial Criminal Justice Research. (2013). Web.

Sacks, M., & Ackerman, A. R. (2014). Bail and sentencing. Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment?. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 59-77.

Wiseman, S. R. (2013). Pretrial detention and the right to be monitored. The Yale Law Journal, 636(123), 1344-1404.

The Assertion That Criminal Justice Employees Are Unmotivated

Motivation is an essential element of every organization. According to Stojkovic et al. (2015), it is a critical component of any firms competitive advantage in the market. This is because motivation enables the workplace to run with the utmost effectiveness and efficiency. Every organization encounters challenges depending on the nature of emblement and job. This also applies to criminal justice employees. Considering the state of criminal justice in the workplace, employees must understand why they have been prompted into the criminal justice profession (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015). Indeed, most criminal justice employees feel unmotivated at their workplace, and this may affect criminal justice. Criminal justice employees may be unmotivated because they work in poor environmental conditions and may lack the effective resource to perform effective work. The provision of opportunities for advancing and improving the motivation levels of employees is essential. Juvenile justice leaders are encouraged to establish consistent communication with their subordinates and determine fair advancement opportunities that will motivate the workers.

The assertion of motivation among the criminal employees reflects the understanding levels of different Social factors at the workplace in the Juvenile justice system. Employees in the judicial setting may be unmotivated as they seem to respond to different limiting aspects and limited resources that restrict them from impacting their work positively. For example, the employees feel unmotivated when they receive low incomes and have poor resources that hinder them from performing their work effectively. Working under the conditions mentioned above can make the employees lose motivation and faith in the juvenile justice system, thus becoming unmotivated.

Possible Ways to Raise the Motivation of Juvenile Justice Workers

One of the ways can be by ensuring that they understand why their roles and reasons are prompted into their respective careers (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015). It is straightforward for the employees to be unfairly treated sometimes. To avoid the catastrophic effects of unfair treatments, it is crucial o suppress injustice stressors. Another way is by providing access to several education programs concerning Judicial service. There should be mentorship and training programs that help motivate and educate employees concerning their roles and responsibilities. Reducing racial disparities is also important among justice workers. This will help all the judicial workers to collaborate and establish effective communication among themselves despite their cultural diversity and backgrounds. Juvenile justice workers will also get motivated when an effective multi-system approach is built. This will reduce burnout and workload in the juvenile justice system, thus allowing workers to have ample time and feel motivated while providing their services.

Some of the recommendations for raising motivation include reading motivational phrases and quotes to revamp motivation (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015).

The techniques are convenient since they will increase confidence levels hence resulting in motivation in the workplace. Addressing the needs of the social workers outside and inside the judicial system. By doing this, they will have the assurance that they are working for an institution that cares about their rights. Funding the workers according to their due. Giving them their due increase working morale. Creating non-discriminatory policies that enable the workers to work in a conducive environment. Ending ethnic, racial actions and inequality inside and outside the judicial system. Providing solutions for the youths for better decision-making. Assisting the workers in recognizing and taking action in their responsivities. Through being the support system of the workers towards meeting the objective of the judicial system.

The Role of Juvenile Justice Managers in the Motivation of Subordinates

The management at large plays a critical role in subordinates motivation (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015). Therefore, the management must set up an appropriate pace for their subordinates. Leadership in every workplace setting is more than providing instructions to the employees who tend to give only their leaders motivation needs (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015). The motivation technique works best in making employees provide their extra efforts ad work even harder. Juvenile justice managers provide training and advice to their employees to motivate them. They take time and meet their subordinates to listen to their subordinates. Providing them ample time is an indication that they care about them. Also, Justice managers strive to create an environment of trust and openness. These also help to encourage new ideas within the Juvenile judicial service system. The manager involves their subordinates in decision-making, showing that every decision counts and every member is important to the juvenile justice system.

Additionally, juvenile justice managers provide extra motivational speeches and awards to the employees as this makes them make more efforts to uphold justice. Therefore, juvenile justice leadership has the upper hand in upholding the workers motivation consistently (Stankovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015). Motivating the employees is essential because it keeps them positive and fair while dealing with injustice in the workplace. Also, the justice managers encourage their subordinates to have a sense of ownership and courage towards their work and whatever they are doing. This is done through mentorship programs. The justice manager plays a critical role in celebrating the success of the Justice Department and the individuals to take the time to learn and build the judicial system. Managers apply the performance of their subordinates as the basis for rewarding and recognizing their efforts so that they can improve their performance in the juvenile justice system and promote fair justice.

References

Stankovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2015). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management. Cengage Learning.

One of the guiding principles in the quest to promote human welfare in the world is the need to achieve the common good. To achieve this feat, it is important to acknowledge the importance of creating an inclusive society that promotes the values of equality, justice, responsibility, and entitlement (Wolff 12). These values should form the basis of governance across all forms of jurisdictions. A just and equal society embraces the rule of law, as well as the need to promote responsible and accountable leadership. Everyone is entitled to enjoy basic human rights, as well as the privilege to exercise ones freedom of speech, ownership, worship, and association among others. Over the years, the concept of justice and entitlement has been the subject of major debates across the world as more people seek to understand the value of distributive justice (Foley 38). This debate gained a lot of momentum over the last several centuries owing to the emergence of the creative industry where the issue of intellectual property rights remains a divisive issue. However, this issue has been widely analyzed and demystified by the entitlement theory. The theory created by Robert Nozick explains the way the principle of justice applies when determining the rights granted by law to an individual who owns a property.

Discussion

The entitlement theory has three main guiding principles. The first one is the principle of justice in acquisition, which focuses on guiding the process of acquiring a property for the first time. This is very important, especially in situations where the acquisition is being done by a registered group or by more than one person. Its focus is ensuring that all the involved parties have all the information necessary in ensuring they make the right decisions. The second one is the principle of justice in a transfer that focuses on guiding the process of transferring property from one owner to another (Wolff 23).

It is important to ensure that any form of transfers happen in an open and just manner to avoid the new owner inheriting risks or burdens that they do not involve them. All parties are entitled to getting all the necessary information such as the history of the property before agreeing to any transfer. The third one is the principle of rectification of injustice, which focuses on guiding the process of addressing cases involving property acquired or transferred through unlawful means. In such situations, it is important to acknowledge the plight of the victims and the need for them to be compensated in case there are any losses incurred (Foley 50). Also, this principle advocate for engaging the people affected by injustice in establishing the elements that might have influenced the phenomenon. This plays a crucial role in ensuring that such injustices do not happen again in the future.

In line with the three crucial principles, Nozick argued that the third principle who be of no use if the world embraces the need to achieve the common good by promoting justice. Also, he believed that the concept of justice in the ownership and transfer of property is an entitlement (Hevia 99). Everyone who owns a property should have entitlement over all the decisions regarding its transfer, changes, or development. The same case applies to all the property that someone acquires through a transfer made through a legal process. This means that property owned by a group or more than one individual should exercise distributive entitlement whereby all the individuals have equal access to benefits and influence in making decisions (Cairns 129). However, society is filled with different personalities and these principles are not applied accordingly. Many people tend to violate them in a bid to defraud others of their rightful properties without showing any regard to the law or the principle of the common good. Just as Nozick argued, embracing justice is the only way in which people can enjoy full entitlement to their holdings (Wolff 31). This will eliminate the need to engage the third principle of justice where the law has to intervene in restoring the entitlement rights of a property to the rightful owner.

The effectiveness of the concept of a free-market economy is highly dependent on the principle of justice and entitlement. In a governance setting, taxation is one of the common ways through which governments raise revenue for running its operations. Taxation often applies the pay as you earn strategy, which means that people on the high-income bracket pay more taxes compared to those on the lower levels. Most governments use the tax revenue to support programs geared towards eradicating poverty and improving the quality of life. Proponents of the principle of justice believe that is unjust to subject rich people to high taxes in a bid to get money to support the poor (Lieberman 119). Their argument is based on the notion that all people should be entitled to their full pay regardless of their economic status. Instead, the government should devise alternative strategies for generating money to support the empowerment programs as part of fulfilling their responsibility to the citizens.

In a society where justice and the principle of entitlement are fully embraced, an activity like taxation should be done voluntarily. However, this cannot be applicable because all citizens have a responsibility to support their respective governments in improving the quality of life and eventually achieving the common good. The main reasoning behind this argument is the fact that all human beings can attain a certain level of welfare in life depending on their abilities and accessible opportunities (Lieberman 131). Since the level of income cannot be equal across all people, then it makes sense if people pay their taxes depending on their economic status. This means that the higher the income the higher the taxation and vice versa. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure equal distribution of resources to empower all its citizens with reliable income-generating activities.

Over the years, the concept of justice and entitlement has come under serious criticism due to its inability to promote the spirit of competitiveness. Most of its critics argue that embracing justice in the entitlement rights over properties can lead to the majority of resources in a country being controlled by very few people (Foley 116). For example, in a situation where a property is passed through successive generations as inheritance can lead to major inequalities because those that assume the entitlement for the holdings do not know the real source of resources used in developing it. Also, this can lead to unsustainable development due to a lack of healthy competition (Lerner and Mikula 108). However, this situation can be rectified through taxation, whereby people that receive property in the form of inheritance are required to pay some tax to the government as a means of bequeathing their value. Taxation plays a very crucial role in the growth and development of any government. However, it is important to ensure that it is done in a just manner, putting into consideration the different levels of income and the need to promote the principle of entitlement. Apart from Nozick, other legal philosophers such as Rawls and Aristotle also emphasized these sentiments by arguing that the concept of justice and entitlement is applied similarly to utilitarianism (Cairns 146). Also, they believe that justice is a relative concept whose meaning and application vary from one jurisdiction to another.

Conclusion

The entitlement theory of justice is one of the oldest and widely applied concepts in societies across the world. Over the years, it has been used to promote the need to create an inclusive society where equality, human welfare, and the common good are the defining elements. People have the right to enjoy various freedoms and rights provided by the constitutions that govern their respective countries. Some of the most controversial entitlements that people believe have been violated by many legal systems include taxation, as well as ownership, and transfer of property. All people have the responsibility of paying taxes to their respective authorities as a way of promoting development. It is not possible to exempt anyone from taxation simply because of the feeling of being entitled to choose whatever they want to do with their money. It is the responsibility of the government to promote justice through equal distribution of resources, empowerment programs, and regulating the ability of people to have full control over properties transferred to them as an inheritance.

Works Cited

Cairns, James. The Myth of the Age of Entitlement: Millennialism, Austerity, and Hope. University of Toronto Press, 2017.

Foley, Tony. Developing Restorative Justice Jurisprudence: Rethinking Responses to Criminal Wrongdoing. Routledge, 2016.

Hevia, Martin. Reasonableness and Responsibility: A Theory of Contract Law. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Lerner, Melvin, and Gerold, Mikula. Entitlement and the Affection Bond: Justice in Close Relationships. Springer Science & Business Media.

Lieberman, Jethro. Liberalism Undressed. OUP USA, 2012.

Wolff, Jonathan. Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

The book under analysis goes under the title Book Review: Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption and it is written by Bryan Stevenson. The author of the book is one of the most renowned lawyers in the USA, and he tells his story, as well as stories of his clients, in his book. Just Merci can be regarded as another loud call for action as the author brings out numerous issues deteriorating the Justice system. Stevenson tells the stories of people waiting on death row, which draws even more attention to his accounts. The book is a description and a certain kind of reflection of the system. The authors clients are representatives of underprivileged groups just like the majority of incarcerated people who are minority groups (ethnic minorities, poor, immigrants, and so on). The writing reveals numerous themes that resonate with many peoples hearts and minds. This review focuses on two themes that have been widely discussed in the US society.

One of the major themes, or even the central one, is associated with inequality. At this point, it is important to note that the author focuses on the Justice system and hardships of prisoners, but he also sheds light on other aspects of the American society that are characterized by inequality. First, his clients are representatives of ethnic minorities and underprivileged populations. Stevensons first client was an African American in his early twenties. The first chapters of the book unveil one of the most significant issues many Americans have to face. The lack of lawyers makes many prisoners vulnerable. The author stresses that there were times when people in the South simply thought that prisoners would be executed without any meaningful involvement of lawyers. Ethnic minorities have a few opportunities to hire a lawyer, which often results in severe sentences.

As has been mentioned above, the author provides real-life stories, which makes the book quite personal. This feature is one of its major strengths, but it is also a weakness. On the one hand, real people and their stories may readers feel that they are witnessing the main characters hardships. This emotional load can facilitate the discussion of the most burning issues in the system. On the other hand, it makes the book less impartial, which is often associated with a certain bias. For instance, Stevenson reveals some details of his background and stresses that his clients are just like people who lived in his community. The author notes that he has also witnessed inequality as he lived in a segregated community. These parallels make readers understand that underprivileged groups are prone to the excessive strictness of the system where opinions of the majority prevail.

At the same time, it is clear that the author has a particular view on the matter that is deeply rooted in his past. Stevenson has seen injustice in many spheres of his life and the life of other people. These experiences could make him more focused on protecting his clients and advocating for people like them. The author does not state that his clients and many incarcerated people are sinless, but he still seems to pay no attention to other sides of his clients characters. Stevenson managed to prove that some of his clients were innocent, but others were still guilty of committing certain crimes. It is important to reveal this aspect as well. To understand the gaps in the system, it is crucial to consider all factors and issues. The system is not perfect, and many innocent people suffer. However, it is not only about saving people from the death penalty. To improve the system, it is necessary to make sure that incarcerated people serve adequate terms or receive adequate punishment. The focus on the brighter side of delinquents can jeopardize the development of the Justice system as well as the development of the entire American society.

The other theme to be discussed is related to the controversy of the life sentence for crimes committed in adolescents. Delinquent crime is one of the most discusses topics in the US society that claims to focus on the wellbeing of and opportunities for young generations. Stevenson emphasizes that adolescents are not allowed to vote or drink alcohol, but they are fully responsible for their actions. The authors points are strong and appealing. The author contributes to the lasting debate stating that adolescents should not be punished as harshly as they are now. The author shows that many of the convicted find themselves under circumstances that make them violent and ready to break laws. Many adolescents of color have fewer opportunities as compared to other groups, which makes them see crime as a possible (and sometimes the only) way out. This theme can also help in improving the US Justice system. Punishment should be adequate. Stevenson also stresses that delinquent crime is also associated with a considerable agreement of bias as minority groups are often victims of the system.

One of the advantages of the book is also associated with the use of allusions to famous cases. For example, Stevenson draws parallels between the case of his client, Walter McMillian, and the famous case immortalized in the book To Kill the Mocking Bird. McMillian was accused of the murder of a white woman, which made him seem guilty without even a detailed investigation. Such cases are not rare in the United States, and Stevenson makes them vivid by telling his true story. The parallels given make readers understand that the segregation of the society is still present in this or that form, which makes the issue more personal and urgent. The author stresses that American society is still characterized by the vices of the beginning of the 20^th century even at the beginning of the 21^st century.

Another strength of the book is its perspective. It is quite common for activists, former prisoners, and journalists to be the major advocates of the changes in the system. However, every lawyers opinion and input are valuable. Stevenson is not the only lawyer who draws the publics attention to the issues in the Justice System and the vulnerability of certain groups. However, his potent voice contributes significantly to the debate and make many people more active. He does not simply shed light on some personal circumstances or vices of society. The author manages to reveal particular weaknesses within the system. A lawyers perspective can help address the major gaps to make the system more effective.

For example, Stevenson shares his dissatisfaction with the practice when judges use their right to override the jurys decision. In many cases, it is apparent that the decision is made by one person exclusively with no regard for other peoples opinions. Such systems cannot be regarded as just. The author provides examples when sentences were too harsh, which often led to the dissatisfaction of the public. These cases often involve an African American delinquent and a White victim. Many judges are biased, which hurts the development of the system. Another issue revealed is the way judges come to the office. American judges are elected, and Stevens stresses that this practice results in bias and injustice within the system. The author stresses that judges are mainly representatives of the majority, at least, in Alabama. Moreover, judges tend to make decisions based on the opinion of the majority as they are elected and do not want to cause voters dissatisfaction.

Other procedural issues are also brought to the fore in the book. Stevenson repeatedly stresses that witnesses are often ignored by the court. African Americans and other minority groups are Some evidence can also be disregarded when the defendant is a representative of a minority group. It is also stressed that some methodologies effectiveness has been largely overestimated. DNA tests have been associated with various errors as their interpretation often resulted in erroneous convictions. This practice unveils the existing bias that makes the Justice system unjust. Such procedural gaps receive certain attention in the media. Stevensons contribution is also valuable. The author depicts particular cases when such gaps led to death or life sentences.

The author does not provide recommendations as to possible improvements in the system. He unveils the major flaws and vices. He shows how the system affects peoples lives. The author also mentions many people who have been brave enough to fight for their right to justice. Some of the stories provided are inspirational. He notes that the purpose of the book is to make people know about all those cases that are characterized by injustice, inequality, and prejudice. He makes readers think of those who have been incarcerated or executed wrongly. One of the major questions he poses is associated with the core concept of the Justice system. The author questions the right of people who are a part of the system to decide whether defendants are guilty and come up with the punishment for them. It is clear that the US Justice system needs changes, and Stevensons book shows some areas of the major concern.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that the book is a valuable source of information concerning the weaknesses of the American justice system. It sheds light on such issues as inequality, the lack of lawyers, judges bias, the jurys prejudice, procedural gaps. The author draws readers attention to delinquent crime controversy and asks an important question. Stevenson makes readers think about one of the central concepts associated with the Justice system. It becomes unclear whether those who make decisions as to peoples punishment have the right to decide. This book can help in addressing the most urgent issues. Lawyers, prosecutors, policymakers, and other stakeholders should have this book as it can help them see real people behind decisions, procedures, and hearings. Having real stories in mind may help people contribute to the development of a truly just Justice system.

The Arizona Department of Corrections is a correctional agency located in my state, Arizona. The facilitys ancillary support structures are all housed in the centralized control where there is zero-tolerance legislation for sexual harassment and abuse. As a result, this outlines a preventative and response approach for all employees and inmates. The limit on cross-gender viewing and searches is another feature of the correctional facility. Except for female officers, the Arizona State Prison Complex (ASPC) is a male-only facility with policies prohibiting cross-gender body searches except in emergencies (Clear et al., 2018). This agency aids the legal system in administering justice by ensuring that criminals receive the punishment they deserve.

Their key duty is to ensure that the offenders sentence is carried out, which may include prison, jail, or community service. This agencys four main objectives are deterrence, retribution, incapacitating, and rehabilitation. This agency provides retribution by assigning punishment to those who commit crimes. The Arizona Department of Corrections employs deterrence by instilling fear in criminals. The goal is to create a threat to prevent people from committing crimes in the future. They make sure that anyone entering their facility understands that there will always be a consequence for their actions.

Since the convicted offender is taken off the streets and put in jail or constrained somewhere, the agency is very good at incapacitating them. Through incapacitation of the individual, the agency precludes the person from committing crimes in the future. When offenders are in prison, they cannot commit crimes because they are constantly monitored. Rehabilitation is very important in the agency because it helps people reintegrate into society after being incarcerated by providing programs and job opportunities. The main goal of rehabilitation is for offenders to accept responsibility for the crimes they have committed. In addition, technology plays a crucial role in the agency. The use of technology has the potential to improve staff safety by improving the ability to observe, detect contraband and weapons, monitor inmate movement and location, and provide staff protection. The Arizona Department of Corrections can provide service and help achieve its mission with the help of technology.

The arguments used by proponents of restorative justice to persuade society of the benefits of restorative justice over incarnation and other forms of punishment include the fact that it significantly reduces reoffending for some criminals. It lessens the urge of victims to violent response against their guilty parties. It also aids in reducing the costs of criminal justice when used as a diversion. One of the most compelling arguments is that it lowers the cost of criminal justice. In todays society, restorative justice attempts to reintegrate offenders into their communities.

Additionally, some restorative justice initiatives are successful in lowering recidivism rates and inspiring individuals to rejoin their society as healthy and productive individuals. This implies that this shift to restorative justice is well-founded in criminologist evidence (Moss et al., 2019). It enables parties to communicate more effectively and develop compassion for the offender while putting their differences aside. They believe that present methods of handling crime focus on the symptoms rather than the causes. They are correct; the present retributive structure can be criticized heavily for simply incarcerating offenders to hold them from society rather than rehabilitating them and suggesting their behavior. They believe that incarcerating someone only breeds hatred in them and accomplishes nothing. Thus, it is better to learn why someone did something wrong than to punish them.

Punishment would have to be a better model for a corrections system. Imprisonment is harsh and immediate retribution for deterring unlawful acts and reforming criminals. When a person receives a penalty, it causes the offenders to reflect on their actions and the gravity of the crime, how it is not acceptable in society, and understand their imprisonment. Punishing criminals gives the community a sense of security and peace of mind about criminal behavior. When offenders become incarnated, it is a way for them to no longer harm the people they have already harmed (Lopez et al., 2018). The prison must be regarded as a place of punishment. However, the retributive concept of shading blood is hollow and pointless as the killing does not bring the dead back; instead, it just forms a chain of hatred that is harmful to both the individuals and society. Even though it is the appropriate retribution for lawbreakers, officials should consider providing rehabilitation programs to better the standards of life of those who have been incarnated.

However, prisons must also become places where offenders are rehabilitated so they may return to society as more productive members. Unless criminal retribution is strictly enforced, individuals will continue to commit crimes out of fear of being punished. Incarnating offenders encourage them to consider their actions and how each action has a consequence, the worst of which is incarceration. Therefore, these purposes, incapacitation, retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation, play a vital role in society. As a result, punishment is an effective method of lowering crime rates all over the world.

References

Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American corrections. Cengage learning.

Lopez, A., Moreira, N., Rivera, A., Amdouni, B., Espinoza, B., & Kribs, C. M. (2018). Economics of prison: Modeling the dynamics of recidivism. Arizona State University. Web.

Moss, S. A., Lee, E., Berman, A., & Rung, D. (2019). When do people value rehabilitation and restorative justice over the punishment of offenders?Victims & Offenders, 14(1), 32-51. Web.

Introduction

Youngsters around the world make decisions, which at times bring about legal consequences. Justice systems in the globe are designed to try and convict offenders, who have attained the legal adult age. The adult age ranges between 18 and 21 years in many nations. Offenders in this age are not tried in the courts because they are considered to be minors. It is for this reason that a juvenile justice system was introduced, to hear and determine cases involving minors. This paper analyzes the current systems and proposes inputs that can improve the functioning of the system.

Juvenile courts

The juvenile courts are subordinate courts, which have the jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving minors (Benekos & Merlo, 2006). These courts are rare as many countries prefer to prosecute the minors, in the ordinary courts. The situation is worse in nations that do not have the facilities to hold these minors, as they await judgment. The authorities are forced to detain them in adult jails and prisons. In these facilities, the minors are faced with incidents of sexual harassment from their seniors. This leads to depressions and deteriorating health conditions because these facilities do not have provisions to deal with such problems. Furthermore, these institutions do not have educational facilities to aid the minors in proceeding with their education. This denies them their basic rights to education. These facilities are crucial for many criminals who do not have moral values. The minors do not have people to guide them morally. This undermines the reason for their imprisonment.

Lack of facilities

States with facilities for minor offenders have been trying to solve some of these problems. However, they have faced several challenges. These facilities are usually under-funded. Therefore, they are unable to carry out their mandates as required. The time limit also makes it practically impossible for any reform to be instilled in the inmates. The Juvenile age limit usually lies between 14-18 years (Corriero, 2006). This makes the maximum period that an inmate can be in the facility to be four years. Shortages of judges and court facilities around the globe make case-hearings to take a long time before being heard and determined. This reduces the time spent in the facility, particularly when the minors are convicted for the crime.

Recommendations

Law enforcement

The above problems represent some of the problems that the juvenile justice system faces in the current world. It is for this reason that the following proposed measures need to be implemented for the betterment of the judicial structure. First, it is the role of the leaders of different democracies to ensure that they have a juvenile justice system. This will ensure that minor offenders are given a fair chance to attain justice. The system also ensures that persons presiding in these cases have a specialty in this field, and hence are able to give fair judgments.

Governments should ensure that the facilities are well equipped in terms of infrastructure and manpower. This is achieved by funding the facility adequately and having qualified staff, working in the facilities. The educational needs of minors should also be considered. This can be achieved by using legislation that advocates for basic education for every citizen, whether in jail or free. The education offered at these facilities should also be of high standards. The minors should be remanded or jailed in the juvenile facilities. Detention or jailing of minors in adult institutions does more harm than good for a child. Adult institutions do not have counseling services or proper health facilities to deal with children. Physical or sexual harassment causes trauma or bodily harm to youngsters.

Many offenses committed by these minors are sometimes caused by family problems. The system should provide solutions to these problems. This can be achieved by using a unified family court. This court integrates jurisdiction of all family-related legal problems. The court presides over matters relating to domestic violence, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and emancipation. It also presides over child support enforcement, adoption, and at times criminal and civil cases, in which a member of a family is involved. This court system is able to determine the root of the problem and solve it wholly. If this system proves to be inapplicable, the use of a coordinated court system can be used as an alternative. It is the latest method that law scholars have advanced. This is considered as the best alternative to the unified court system because it does not require changing the court structure of a nation.

The system may apply any of the following methods to serve its purpose. It can gather together persons that have dealt with legal problems of the family at different capacities. Secondly, it can develop an approach, where cases involving single families are heard together, and have one judge presiding over them (Sherman, 2011). It can also advocate for a structure, where personnel and an investigator working on the case can share information so as to link the problems and find a solution. It can also integrate the use of computer technology, in order to monitor a family court history, so as to help judges or any other person working on the case, to learn of any related proceedings (Corriero, 2006). Finally, the system can advocate for a minor representation in court by an advocate, this ensures that the rights of minors are not infringed.

Community involvement

Alternative dispute resolution techniques may also help in improving the juvenile justice system. There is a shortage of judicial resources (courtrooms and time to hear and determine cases involving minors). Resolving issues concerning families away from courts save them from the humiliation that is brought by the proceedings and time-wasting court procedures. The private sector and society as a whole should ensure that there is a working juvenile justice system. The private sector should have facilities by providing funds to support the infrastructure and service delivery of an institution. The society has a role of reporting the offenses committed by offenders to the authority for further actions. Communities are also mandated with the role of preventing the acts of minor delinquency or status offense. The society should also prevent incidences of substance abuse. This can be achieved by guiding minors to adopt moral values.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the juvenile justice system is a necessity in every society. It is absolutely true that sometimes people make the wrong choices. However, it is the role of society to ensure that these people are guided back on track. Appropriate systems should be put in place, to ensure that the minors (offenders) are given opportunities to rectify their wrongdoings. If all stakeholders take their roles seriously, the world will be a better place.

References

Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2006). Crime Control, Politics and Policy (1st edition title: Whats Wrong with the Criminal Justice System: Ideology, Politics and the Media). Burlington: Elsevier Science.

Corriero, M. A. (2006). Judging children as children: A proposal for a juvenile justice system. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple Univ Press.

Sherman, F. T. (2011). Juvenile justice: Advancing research, policy, and practice. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Introduction

Although status offenses and juvenile delinquency justice are functionally similar, they are fundamentally different concerning the actions that constitute an offense. In this paper, there will be an investigation of the meaning and examples of status offenses. This will be done about the problem question. Furthermore, the paper will seek to answer the question of how perpetrators of status offenses are processed and corrected, underscoring the various rationales that have been provided for such treatment by the juvenile justice system. It will also look at the role of the parent in helping the system to correct such behavior and the stance that is taken by the juvenile system where the parents are uncooperative in that regard.

Status offenses committed

Status offenses are non-criminal acts that are considered offenses by the fact that those who commit them are underage at the time of commission. Therefore, adults can commit the same act without them being regarded as offenses (Kendall, 2007). They are regulated under the premise that they are harmful to minors and that the state should play its protective role towards them by prohibiting such actions. For example, the law regarding underage consumption of alcohol is justified by the fact that most people are not considered to have developed their decision-making skills until the age of 18 years (Rose, n.d). Moreover, some of them develop these skills much later on. The age of 21 years that is set is, therefore, an acceptable compromise for the law in its role of protection. Some other status offenses include truancy, incorrigibility, breaking curfew, etc. (Federle, 2012).

Most cities have laws in place requiring that all children under the age of seventeen years should be home before 11.00 pm failure to which they will have broken curfew and can be detained for having committed a status offense (Arthur & Waugh, 2009). The children who are found committing this crime are often held in a designated center until their parents can pick them up. All four teenagers are therefore violating their curfew and are hence committing a status offense. Possession of alcohol or tobacco is also considered a status offense (Arthur & Waugh, 2009). The current state laws prohibit the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages by anyone who is under the age of 21 years (Rose, n.d.). The sole lady is, therefore, committing an offense by possessing a cigarette, and the two male teenagers are also in the commission of a crime because they have a beer.

How to process teenage violators

First of all, I would find out if their reasons for being outside at 1.00 a.m. fall under any of the provided exceptions. The only exceptions that are availed for this offense are when the young violators are either outside after acceptable hours because they are traveling or when they are dealing with a school project (Michon, 2016). None of these teenagers fall under any of the exceptions, and therefore, the only option available is to take disciplinary measures. With regards to curfew violations, I would issue a warning to the teenagers and drop them off at their respective homes. If the teenagers are cooperative and remorseful about their actions, then there would be no need to take them into custody more so if they are first-time offenders.

The reason why I would favor this approach is that how the violators are handled when they first come into contact with the justice system has been considered to be critical for reducing the recidivism rates (Kendall, 2007). For instance, some states usually restrict the involvement of the courts in status offense cases by requiring that the relevant agencies offer the affected families pre-court diversion services (Kendall, 2007). This, it is argued, helps to keep the youth away from the criminal system for as long as possible thereby reducing the risks of recidivism. Likewise, my choice to avoid the involvement of the juvenile penal system is founded on this justification.

Where the teenagers are uncooperative

The process that I would follow is to take the teenagers into limited custodial protection (Kendall, 2007). This means that they will be held in juvenile detention facilities for a maximum of 24 hours. Also, I will contact their parents or guardians as per the requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). I will also communicate with the agency that is designated to provide services to status offenders to establish initial contact in case they are not readily released (Kendall, 2007).

Even when they are detained, status offenders are still treated differently from juvenile delinquents because status offenses are not crimes (Steinhart, 1996). The state, therefore, assumes a protective role over these violators because they are merely taking correctional as opposed to punitive measures. On the whole, most young people that commit status offenses are kept in private as opposed to public juvenile facilities (Steinhart, 1996).

How to handle uncooperative parents

If a parent refuses to come to the scene to pick his/her child up, this will inevitably affect the way I would handle the case because I cannot leave the teenagers at the scene. The two options I would pursue would be to either deliver the children home or to place them under custodial detention for the rest of the night. Also, I would endeavor to find out whether the parents are aiding and encouraging the teenager in question to break curfew because if so, then he/ she is liable to fines and a period of community service (Michon, 2016). The parents could also be ordered to participate in relevant social services activities so that they can receive learning on more effective ways of parenting and how they can improve their relationships with their children. In such a case, it would also be prudent to place the children with relevant social services authorities who can then decide on how best to assist them.

Conclusion

The paper has, indeed, shown that status offenses are different from other juvenile offenses because they do not constitute the commission of the traditionally recognized crimes. The paper has also shown that the state constructs these crimes and their subsequent punishment around the fact that it must protect minors. Furthermore, the corrective measures that are taken against the offenders are also different from those taken against juvenile delinquents because the state is primarily aiming to prevent these offenses from escalating into criminal offenses which attract much more severe punishment. Furthermore, the state also plays its protective role by ensuring that parents whose behavior contributes to the waywardness of their children are also corrected accordingly. All in all, status offenses are an apt example of how the state aims to maintain social order and to protect the youth from engaging in criminal activities.

References

Arthur, P. J., & Waugh, R. (2009). Status offences and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The exception that swallowed the rule. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7(2), 1-22.

Federle, K. H. (2012). Children and the law: An interdisciplinary approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kendall, J. R. (2007). Juvenile Status offences: Treatment and early intervention. Web.

Michon, K. (2016). Juvenile law: status offences. Web.

Rose, T. (n.d.). Juvenile and the status offence: A justification for the current system. Web.

Steinhart, D. J. (1996). Status offences. The Juvenile Court, 6(3), 86-99.

The coherent society could be characterized by the great attention given to humanistic values. Decades of human thought evolution and great social upheavals of the 20th century resulted in significant shifts in peoples mentality. These also gave rise to numerous concerns related to the sphere of human rights. Besides, the modern justice system has a number of various aspects and peculiarities that assure its efficient functioning under modern conditions. Hence, the existence of juvenile and adult justice systems could also be considered one of the main peculiarities of the modern age. This split is predetermined by the unique attitude to children who are considered the most important value of the modern humanistic society.

Analyzing this peculiarity of the justice system, it is crucial to admit significant differences between juvenile and adult spheres. The second one is organized in accordance with the traditional patterns created in the process of this systems evolution. It presupposes special punishments for certain types of crime and offends. Additionally, it aims at creating the frames that could help to protect other people and guarantee their existence (Butts and Ojmarrh 168).

Furthermore, it is focused on providing punishments and imposing a penalty on offenders. Incarceration is the most frequently used mean of punishment (Hirbyand para. 4). However, the juvenile justice system has some other goals and peculiarities that determine its functioning.

First, there are significant differences in court proceedings (Similarities and Differences in Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems para. 8). When an adult person is accused of a crime, a juvenile at the same time is accused of a delinquent act (Clark para. 6). It means that all actions and offenses committed by a young person are considered to be less serious. Furthermore, they are not afforded the right to a public trial by jury (Hirbyand para. 2).

The judge is the only person who analyzes their cases as it is believed that the psyche of a child might suffer from a great level of attention to the offense. Finally, the juvenile justice system tends to rehabilitate a young criminal and guarantee his/her further becoming part of society. These differences determine the main peculiarities of this systems functioning and the attitude to offenders.

There is another disputable concern related to the given sphere. In the majority of cases, a person between 10 and 18 could be considered minor and treated in accordance with the main laws of the juvenile justice system (Juveniles Justice System vs. Criminal Justice System para. 7). However, there is a perspective that states that the given age range could not be used anymore. The adherers of this idea state that people of this age should be still taken as children and be provided with some mediated sentences (Youth in the Justice System: An Overview para. 6). I believe that the existing approach is efficient enough and could be used to classify an offender. People of this age should be held fully liable for all actions they perform.

Altogether, the differences in the approaches to young and adult offenders condition the appearance of the split in the modern justice system. The juvenile and adult spheres tend to analyze cases in different ways. The choice of the practice is predetermined by the important peculiarities of the offense and the necessity to provide a punishment. Differences could be considered the logical result of the evolution of modern society.

Works Cited

Butts, Jeffery, and Mitchell, Ojmarrh. Brick by Brick: Dismantling the Border Between Juvenile and Adult Justice, Criminal Justice 2000. 2 (n.d.): 167-213. Web.

Clark, Peter. How Does the Juvenile Criminal System Differ from the Adult System? n.d. Web.

Hirbyand, James. Difference Between Juvenile And Adult Justice Systems. n.d. Web.

Juveniles Justice System vs. Criminal Justice System. n.d. Web.

Similarities and Differences in Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems. n.d. Web.

Youth in the Justice System: An Overview. n.d. Web.

Justice reinvestment is now a topic of heated debate. Notably, officials, scholars, and policymakers tend to agree that it is an effective way to reduce the crime rate. Though, there are people who still believe that the old system with its prisons and regulations is more effective. Therefore, it is essential to identify the major advantages of the new approach and its benefits for communities.

In the first place, it is necessary to note that the existing system has proved to be ineffective. The US prisons are overcrowded. Hence, expenses on maintenance of prisons increase. At the same time, the rate of crime does not reduce. On the contrary, it steadily increases. It is also important to note that inmates often acquire more connections with the criminal world in prisons and continue committing crimes when they are released (Wright 20). Wright also notes that prisons are outdated institutions and are still tolerated due to a lack of knowledge about them (20). The researcher stresses that prisons contributed greatly to the increase of criminal activity as inhumane conditions in prisons and stigmatization of former inmates make people commit crimes that are often more serious than their first offenses. More so, former inmates have to bear a certain stigma and it is difficult for them to become respectable members of society. It is but natural that the system has to be changed significantly and justice reinvestment is the most efficient option.

Justice reinvestment entails the reduction of expenditure on prisons maintenance and reallocation of these funds to the development of communities. Hence, this approach focuses on the cause of the problem rather than on its effects (Fox, Albertson, and Wong 27). Neighborhood characterized by underinvestment and poverty of the population is often characterized by a high rate of crime. Therefore, it is crucial to invest in the development of neighborhoods rather than waste money on the maintenance of inmates.

Admittedly, it is vital to focus on the economic development of communities. The government should try to decrease the unemployment rate. People should also have access to health care services that are affordable and efficient. Remarkably, it is possible to create jobs while developing the infrastructure of neighborhoods.

Funding development of neighborhoods should address such spheres as education and recreation as well. Children and especially teenagers must have access to high-quality education, both secondary and higher. Building sports and recreational facilities will also be beneficial for the community. It will help reduce the unemployment rate and keep away teenagers from criminal activities. Thus, funding the development of neighborhoods will lead to reduced crime rates as people will not be involved in criminal activities since they will have appropriate living conditions.

On balance, it is necessary to note that justice reinvestment is an effective and necessary option that can positively affect the development of society. It is more effective to prevent crime than to maintain inmates who are unlikely to become effective members of society. Funding the development of poor neighborhoods can help people have jobs and appropriate living conditions. Better living conditions for people will keep them away from criminal activity and the crime rate will reduce significantly. Admittedly, policymakers and officials have to come up with effective strategies to implement justice reinvestment incentives. It is also necessary to make people aware of the peculiarities of the approach and its benefits for communities and the entire society.

Works Cited

Fox, Chris, Kevin Albertson, and Kevin Wong. Justice Reinvestment: Can the Criminal Justice System Deliver More for Less? New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Wright, Martin. Making Good: Prisons, Punishment and Beyond. Portland, OR: Waterside Press, 2008. Print.

Introduction

The name originates from the rule acting in defense of London citizens rights to use taxi services regardless of the distance they needed to travel. Without the rule, cab drivers used to avoid the customers who requested a long route. The rule was set to protect the people of the city from such speculations. In the legal profession, the same rule ensures that legal services are provided to every individual in need of them regardless of their identity, case specifics, payment details, beliefs, regulation, and so forth. In this paper, the cab rank rule will be examined and analyzed from the standpoint of the issues it presents, what is known about them in academic circles, and what possible solutions could be proposed.

Issues with Cab Rank Rule

The main issue with the cab rank rule is connected with adherence of lawyers to it. Currently, the mechanics of the provision of legal services are regulated by the free market in many countries such as the U.S., UK, and the rest of Europe. Clients have the right to choose by whom they would like to be represented. Lawyers may also consider defending the clients they choose to be more or less profitable from the financial or image-making standpoint.

Legal agencies range by the price and quality of their services, making some of them unaffordable for the general public. In practice, it becomes a challenge to establish access to legal services for every citizen. In many countries, every suspect has the right for a lawyer provided to them by the government in case of need, yet well-established law firms will unlikely represent a person if that case is deemed undesirable for their image.

The issue of enforcement also stems from the problem of adherence as it is rather difficult to punish a lawyer who overlooks the cab rank rule. It presents plenty of opportunities to avoid unwanted clients due to the exemptions guaranteed by paragraph 602 of the UK Barristers Code of Conduct (Bar Standards Board 2015). These exemptions relieve them of taking a case provided the remuneration for it does not correlate with the difficulty. In addition, barristers are exempt from representing clients on the same case which qualifies as a conflict of interest. Thus, the question of the cab rank rules practical use arises due to a variety of legal ways to avoid following it.

In light of the fact that the rule aims to support the right of every person to be eligible for representation, Fountain Court Chambers (McLaren, Ulyatt & Knowles 2013) adds that the choice of a lawyer should also be respected within the cab rank rule. Such a choice, however, is rather difficult to support in the real world because barristers fees may not always be affordable. The problem with the lawyer appointed by the state to those cannot afford the legal representative of their choice is the biasness of such representation. In cases when the state becomes the opponent, the independence of the legal representative might become vital. Therefore, making the choice of a lawyer the right of every citizen might be challenging from the standpoint of budgetary costs.

The problem of the rule is also in its limited scope. According to the Bar Standards Board (2018), the rule covers only barristers of whom there are around 16 thousand people, while there are 130 thousand solicitors not bound by the rule. Higgins (2017) also points out that even for barristers, there is a plethora of exemptions that grant them an opportunity to avoid representing unwanted clients. He adds that adequate representation could be arranged only through the cooperation of a solicitor and a barrister, which further diminishes the value of the rule in this regard (Higgins 2017). Therefore, a corrective action seems to be required to equalize the cab rank rule.

The idea behind the rule is understandable and honorable from the perspective of ethics. Similar to the manner in which the constitution guarantees the citizens of the country basic rights and freedoms, the cab rank rule ensures peoples right to have a law expert to represent their interests in court. The difficulty of fulfilling this ethical duty is primarily in the market mechanisms that dictate the tendencies among law firms (Taylor v. Lawrence 2002).

The execution of the rule is also undermined by the fact that in the UK, it does not apply to solicitors who often prefer more wealthy clients and, therefore, have a choice of whom to represent. According to Higgins (2017), the size of the financial help issued by the government in support of the cab rank rule has dwindled. This fact has contributed to the increase in the number of people unable to afford legal representation. All of this speaks further to the gap in the practical implementation of the rule. The consequences of such a situation lead to an increase in the number of ill-advised court decisions and other consequences. This implicit denial of justice produces a long-term effect on society, lowering trust among members of the public in the justice system.

Arguments in Favor of the Cab Rank Rule

There are also proponents of the cab rank rule who argue that its relevance did not subside. McLaren, Ulyatt, and Knowles (2013) dispute the above-mentioned claim of the arising financial difficulties on the grounds that abolition of the rule would still not achieve universal and unrestricted access to justice. They argue that the cab rule does not serve the purpose of encouraging barristers to work on cases regardless of fees. The problem lies not within the framework of the rule itself. It is rather an issue of a state and its ability to provide financial aid to people in need of representation.

There has also been an argument over the issue that the rule rarely triggers disciplinary fines. Certain academics believe that this thesis supports the claim that the rule is practically useless (Flood & Hviid 2013). McLaren, Ulyatt, and Knowles (2013) note, however, that the absence of disciplinary fines in regard to the cab rank rule may simultaneously indicate the flawlessness of its performance.

Still, if there is no objective measurement of its performance, there is a reason to doubt its relevance. However, it may be argued that the practical use of the cab rank rule extends not only to clients but also to lawyers themselves. According to Lord Neuberger (2013), this rule grants a representative protection from the reputational damage that may be inflicted on them by the media, state or the client. By having to undertake any legal matter within his or her proficiency, the layer is protected from the moral and ethical issues raised, for instance, by the fact of representing a terrorist or a serial killer.

One more critical issue that suggests that this rule is relevant is the fact that it prevents discrimination of the client on the basis of his or her identity, race, sexual orientation, and so on (Bar Standards Board 2012). In this manner, the cab rank rule forms the basis of professional conduct and requires lawyers to be respectful of their clients differences and act as experts in their field (Lee v. Ashers Baking Co Ltd & Ors 2015). Yet the rightfulness of this principle is undermined by the fact that it does not apply to all lawyers in the field because solicitors are not bound by the cab rank rule (Higgins 2017). There is also a problem of overlapping that concerns other laws such as the Equality Act of 2010 protecting individuals from discrimination.

Opportunities for the Cab Rank Rule

Should the cab rank rule be reworked, it can become a more suitable tool for defending the rights of both clients and lawyers. In its present state, it does not provide a universal service. As economic reasons are one of the most frequent barriers towards fair representation and access to justice, the rule should be more focused to address this issue. In light of this, Higgins (2017) suggests rebooting the rule as a universal obligation of service (UOS). Such an obligation should be applied to both barristers and solicitors and imply an hourly pro bono service for unpopular or poor clients. A small portion of their billed hours should be allocated to the cases that require urgent legal advice.

Such an initiative may be substituted with the requirement to pay a small percentage of their earnings to fund this service with both options available to lawyers. An initiative to update the cab rank rule is also supported by Flood and Hviid (2013) who agree that, in its current version, the rule does not withstand the challenges of the modern world. Yet, they propose only that the rule should be extended to solicitors as well.

It appears that the radical change will require a substantial amount of negotiation and collaboration between the government and the Bar Standards Board. If implemented, the UOS could indeed provide universal access to justice. However, the first reaction of the Bar would likely be negative as they tend to maintain the status quo in regard to the rule (McLaren, Ulyatt & Knowles 2013).

Complete elimination of the rule was also suggested as an option that could end the standing debate. Flood and Hviid (2013) argue that since the rule produces no effect whatsoever, it should be abolished as an anachronism. Indeed, given the adoption of Equality Act 2010, which is rather inclusive and well-round in its nature, there seems to be no need for special rules for barristers that provide so many exceptions that the effect is barely visible.

Conclusion

The cab rank rule is a controversial issue that requires action due to the fact that it does not properly address the problem of access to justice. The main downsides of the rule include its limited scope, poor adherence and enforceability, and its overlapping with other laws. Among the strong sides are the protection of lawyers from reputational damage and the client from discrimination. The options to address the issue of the cab rank rule are through its complete abolition, the maintenance of status quo, the extension to solicitors, and reworking it into UOS.

Reference List

Bar Standards Board 2012, Code of conduct. Web.

Bar Standards Board 2015, Current guidance. Web.

Bar Standards Board 2018, Practicing barrister statistics. Web.

Flood, J & Hviid, M 2013, The cab rank rule: its meaning and purpose in the new legal services market, University of Westminster School of Law, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-48.

Higgins, A 2017, Rebooting the cab rank rule as a limited universal service obligation, Legal Ethics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-223.

Lee v. Ashers Baking Co Ltd & Ors (2015) NICty 2.

Neuberger 2013, Tomorrows lawyers today  todays lawyers tomorrow. Web.

McLaren, M, Ulyatt, C, & Knowles, C 2013, The cab rank rule: a fresh view. Web.

Taylor v. Lawrence (2002) EWCA Civ 90.