Law Enforcement in U.S.: Problem and Solution.

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In modern U.S. society, law can be divided into two broad categories: criminal law and civil law. All law other than criminal law is known as civil law; it includes tort law (persona; wrongs and damages), property law (the law governing the transfer and ownership of property), and contract law (the law of personal agreements).

Discussion

A person or group of persons may be called as advocates when they are engaged in “a communication process that involves strategically planned set of activities aimed at achieving or promoting or reinforcing a change in policy, program, legislation, and approach or resource allocation” (“Advocacy, Information and Research Department”). For Hepworth and Larsen (1986), advocacy can be understood as “the process of working with and/or on behalf of clients

to obtain services or resources for clients that would not otherwise be provided,
to modify extant policies, procedures, or practice that adversely impact clients, or
to promote new legislation or policies that will result in the provision of needed resources or services” (as cited in “What is Advocacy?”).

Accordingly, there are at least two (2) types of advocacy: “

case advocacy – acting on behalf of a client (individual, family or group) in order to access needed resources, services, or to influence policy change; and
class advocacy – involves working on behalf of groups of clients and communities who have similar needs” (as cited in “What is Advocacy”).

On the other hand, mediation is defined as “an organised negotiation…a structured process in which the mediator guides the disputants through a discussion of their mutual problems and concerns, organises the parties’ presentations of alternatives for resolving the problem and aids the parties in arriving at a resolution of their dispute” (“Mediation”). It is so far the most commonly used method of resolving conflicts. Mediation programs may include various disputes that involved community, commercial, family, environmental, and public policy (as cited in Schwerin, 1995).

Law enforcement supervision is said to deal with the management and supervision of law enforcement agencies and personnel. It is said to touch on the structure of the law enforcement agency, personnel management, fiscal management, and the potential criminal and civil liabilities of members of the force (Tiffin University, n.d.). The principles involved in law enforcement supervision are said to include leadership principles, the psychology of building morale and handling grievances, command level personnel duties and responsibilities, discipline-related supervisory problems and responsibilities, budgeting, and investigations of internal affairs (University of Texas at Brownville, 2005).

While there is a dearth in literature on changes in law enforcement supervision through the years, some of the recent changes can be gleaned from changes in the statistics being gathered in yearly surveys of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Comparing the section on policies and programs for the years 1997 (Bureau of the Census, 1997, p.7) and 2000 for the Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies Form of the US Bureau of Census, one finds that the 2000 survey adds cyber crime and internal affairs to the list of problems and tasks being polled, together with the traditional problems of hate crime, child abuse, community crime prevention, community policing, victim assistance, youth outreach and other problems (US Census Bureau, 2000, p.7).

It is also worth noting that the 1997 survey included questions on the community policing practices of law enforcement agencies (Bureau of the Census, 1997, p.8), while the 2000 sample survey did not.

Mediation and Advocacy in Local Setting

In Hawaii, a Honolulu Neighborhood Justice Center (HNJC) was established in early 1980s that provides mediation services. According to their case statistics report, the HNJC Annual Report 1987, their mediation services are fast with an approximate period of fourteen (14) days from intake to disposition with a rate of 70% mediated or pacified in 1,625 cases handled (as cited in Schwerin, 1995).

According to Barnes and Adler (1983), the employment of 200 Hawaii citizens trained as volunteer mediators resulted to positive impact and contributed social profits to the society such as community empowerment. Adler and Barnes further observed that “neighbors become responsible for what goes on in their own neighborhood and people in conflict situations become responsible for the outcomes of their own disputes…People trained in mediation find themselves using the same skills in their daily interpersonal life, at home, in the workplace, and with friends and acquaintances” (as cited in Schwerin, 1995).

In Wisconsin, the American Cancer Society Volunteer Action Network has successfully advocates anti-smoking campaign and accomplished the following (American Cancer Society):

Provided cancer treatment to more low-income women through Wisconsin’s Well Woman Program.
Prevented more young people from smoking and encouraged thousands of smokers to quit by protecting $10 million per year for Wisconsin’s tobacco prevention program.
Successfully encouraged 40 state legislators to support a bill that will ensure cancer patients have access to off-label drugs.
Protected hundreds of people from the cancer-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke by passing the state’s first countywide smoke-free restaurant ordinance in La Crosse County.
Pressed Congress for continued investment in vital cancer research and important cancer control programs.
Encouraged Wisconsin’s congressional representatives to support federal legislation that will help cancer patients navigate the health care system.

Mediation and Advocacy in National Setting

The national government also benefited from mediation. The government utilized this type of alternative dispute resolution to recover its money from a contractor who won a multi-million dollar government project, which subsequently identified to have flaws.

According to Atty. Richard Busch, senior legal counsel of government contracts at the law firm of Faegre & Benson, that it would be good for the government and to the contractor to settle the issue not through litigation but in mediation because “litigation isn’t about managing conflicts – it’s about winning… but many businesses and [government] agencies have begun to question the time, money, and risk involved in all-or-nothing litigation. More and more, they’re turning to tools like mediation to resolve disputes” (as cited in Freeman & Meisinger, 2000).

The Legal Action Center (LAC) advocates in the national level for effective and responsible public health perception and action towards alcohol and drug dependence and abuse and protection of the rights and dignity of the victims of who were in the state of recovery or still suffering from these infirmities. Through advocacy, they were able to accomplish the following:

Helping to generate over $1 billion of federal funding increases for alcohol and drug treatment and prevention services since 1996.
Securing protection for people in recovery from alcohol and drug dependence in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Fair Housing Act.
Helping to draft key portions of the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and supporting its passage through enactment of the Children’s Health Act of 2000.
Securing equal insurance coverage for alcohol and drug treatment in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program through a Presidential Executive Order issued in 1999.
Publishing seminal studies on welfare and addiction and conducting an advocacy campaign that shaped welfare reform laws in more than half the states to promote treatment and treat people in recovery fairly and influencing President Bush’s recent proposals to expand use of addiction treatment.
Developing model managed care policies designed to provide people with addictions the level and length of care they need.
Drafting key portions of the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act of 2000 (S.2435), a bill to provide funding to state child welfare and addiction agencies to promote comprehensive treatment services to families in the child welfare system.
Developing model policies and helping shape federal legislation and regulations for protecting the confidentiality of alcohol and drug treatment records and other information.

The Role of Human Services Worker in Advocacy and Mediation

According to Occupational Outlook Handbook, Human services worker is “a generic term for people with various job titles, such as social service assistant, case management aide, social work assistant, residential counselor, community support worker, alcohol or drug abuse counselor, mental health technician, child-care worker, community outreach worker, life skill counselor, and gerontology aide. They generally work under the direction of professionals from a wide variety of fields, such as nursing, psychiatry, psychology, rehabilitation, or social work.” More often than not, the aforesaid professionals are the forefronts in advocacy and mediation processes.

Thus, the role of the human services worker in advocacy is to assist the advocate in stepping forward and speaking on behalf of the client; same as in mediation, where the human services worker will provide support to the mediator in resolving the arguments or conflicts (as cited in “What Do Social Workers Do?”).

The Future of Advocacy and Mediation

No one can deny the emerging trends and positive implications of advocacy, mediation and other forms of lobbying and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that people and various organizations use to resolve disputes or differences of opinion. Consequently, the employment of advocacy to advance the interests of marginalized sectors will continue to flourish in this country due to accomplishments this process has attained for the past years; mediation, on the other hand, will remain to be the most preferred alternative dispute resolution due to the four (4) reasons:

cost—mediation, if it results in agreement, is virtually guaranteed to be less costly than litigation;
control—principals typically have a larger role in the actual negotiation than is true in most lawyer-assisted negotiations arising out of disputes;
customized agreements—partially because clients can be heavily involved in the creation of agreements in mediation, the agreements can be tailored precisely; and
confidentiality—mediation generally affords the parties the opportunity to construct a settlement that can be as private as desired (Lewis, 1997).

Perspectives on Youth Offenders

While defining the legal framework and processes of juvenile courts, and comparing it with adult court systems, the advantages of juvenile courts have been mentioned. From a perspective a youth offender, the juvenile courts offer solace to the harsh trial and punishment dimensions of adult courts. The juvenile courts offer tangible opportunities for change and development. The following themes pose advantages for youth offenders.

Focus On Change Capacity Of Youth

The youth have so much future and potential. Despite their reputations being marred by criminal activities, they still have time to contemplate on their future, and be empowered to change. Juvenile courts form part of the support system of children and teenagers who cope with their wrong acts and decisions. They are still punished, but much of the juvenile proceedings focus on the capacity of the youth to change themselves first. They have to recognize they need to change, and consequently, ask help from others to sustain positive changes within them.

Compassionate Approach To Punishments

Juvenile courts display compassion in their punishments. The judges should be able to recognize the reasons why the offenders committed crimes and offenses, so that long-term recommendations will benefit the youth. The options do not normally include long separations from family or incarceration. Any form of detention aims for the youth to reflect on its wrongdoings and inculcate that crime pays, and even the youth must pay to some extent.

The “psychological well-being” of the youth forces juvenile courts to identify the youth offenders’ specific needs and to try fulfilling them (Stephani, no date, 14). Juvenile courts do not represent the adversaries of youth, but must symbolize their inspiration and hope in the youth.

What if children and teenagers were tried as adults? What if the juvenile courts are abolished? There have been ongoing debates regarding abolishing juvenile courts because of concern over public safety (Stephani, no date, 16). As long as juvenile delinquents continue to increase, the impact and relevance of juvenile courts continue to be assailed too.

The paper presents some social implications of abolishing the juvenile court. There could actually be gains and losses on this kind of situation, but that depends on different factors, that will lead to different scenarios.

Scenario 1: The juvenile courts get abolished, and children 15 years old and above are tried as adults. Community-based proto-courts handle those who are younger.

Offenders who are younger than 15 years old could go through proceedings deemed at community levels, or district levels. These courts can act as pseudo-juvenile courts. They handle small cases of children, especially first-time law violators.

There should be provision still for the existence of intake departments that can dismiss “light” cases before they reach adult courts. In adult courts, young delinquents are punished as adults. They can go through multiple life sentences, even death sentences when applicable. They either will be completely changed by the adult court and punishment experience, or they will turn out worse. And if they do turn out worse, they could do more harm to the society once released. But, if they were transformed by incarceration somehow, they would change for the better after serving their imprisonment time.

Scenario 2: The juvenile courts get abolished and replaced by teen courts.

These are courts where teenagers become judges, lawyers, jury and plaintiffs as well (Butts and Buck, 2000, “Teen Courts: A Focus on Research”). Adults are still supervising this process. One of the objectives of the court is to assure that the youth gain participation and representation in legal issues affecting them. They can deal with small cases such as theft and truancy, but not cases like murders and homicides. They also handle cases for teenagers, ages 15 years old and below, and who are first time offenders.

This means that adult courts handle the rest of the cases. The same possible consequences for the offenders and the society could occur, depending on the effect of adult courts and punishment on the youth offenders. They either will be completely changed by the adult court and punishment experience, or they will turn out worse.

The abolishment of the juvenile system can work or it might not work, to serve its purpose of mitigating the effects of juvenile delinquency, as well as rehabilitating juvenile delinquents. It can work in such a way that the society is protected in the short run while the offenders are imprisoned, but the offenders suffer more in the long run. Their psychological welfare could be totally and adversely affected by imprisonment and separation from their friends and families.

This paper argues that the juvenile courts should not be abolished, but they can be redefined according to specific needs and issues that the youth faces today. Juvenile courts aims for the reformation of youth offenders, and they can start with identifying why such cases arise, and from there help eliminate the genuine root causes of juvenile delinquency by creating juvenile prevention programs.

The Juvenile Justice System must consist of people, and judges that can attain a critical balance between understanding the youth’s needs and issues, as well as appropriating fair punishments.

There ought to be dispositional alternatives (Stevenson et al., 1996, “The Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Today”). The juvenile court must determine sanctions that respond to the therapeutic rehabilitative needs of offenders, without forsaking accountability and community safety.

Juvenile courts must enforce policies where parents or the guardians of the children actively help in supporting their children’s welfare. They can also try “parent responsibility laws,” that fines parents for the criminal deeds of their children. Some of the current state policies include (El Nasser and Moss, 1996, as cited in Month in Review, “Where Children Prey, Parents Pay”:

In Louisiana, parents found guilty of “improper supervision” of a minor face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison if their child associates with a convicted felon, drug dealer or gang member.

In Arkansas, parents face up to $500 fines and can be held in contempt if they do not attend parental training programs.

In California, more than 1,000 parents have been ordered to undergo counseling or parenting classes — or face prosecution for contempt if they refuse.

In Oregon, parents are required to enter into a contract with the court — for example, agreeing to attend family counseling — facing a $1,000 fine if they fail to comply.

Communities, and teenage or youth-oriented organizations and groups must also be encouraged by the juvenile system to actively participate in creating more meaningful and sustainable means of therapy for youth offenders. Outside support can help children and teenagers feel that they compose a vital part of their communities, instead of perceiving stigma or discrimination.

Communities play a huge role in monitoring dispositional options (Stevenson et al., 1996, “The Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Today”). Members of the community know these children in some way or another, and must be able to identify what should be done to help children develop themselves. They can also employ model offenders, to help give sharing or trainings for other offenders.

In terms of dealing with children and teenagers with repeated crimes, their problems and issues must be analyzed and identified. The juvenile courts must seek help from the families of these children to determine the cause and reinforcements of such criminal behaviors. The juvenile courts must assure the timeliness of its processes. They must be part also of other decisions that concern the welfare of children, especially those that are victims of abuse and neglect (Stevenson et al., 1996, “The Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Today”).

Juvenile court judges should be arbiters of children’s rights. They can serve as spokespersons schools, churches and other institutions and advocate family and community-based youth programs. These programs involving youth could inhibit more youth from developing social deviances. (Stevenson et al., 1996, “The Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Today”).

Conclusion

The juvenile court system must be like any system, self-critical at all times. They must continuously ask what they can do to prevent the increase of youth offenders and at the same time, create relevant measures to punish juvenile delinquents appropriately. They ought to continuously coordinate with families, churches, schools, communities and local and national youth welfare organizations, to create a more holistic and long-term approach in helping the youth help themselves. If the children and youth lack direction, then what can adults do to facilitate their awareness for vision and self-realization? Questions like these point out on some core youth issues, that when properly addressed, can decrease juvenile delinquency.

References

American Cancer Society. Wisconsin’s Advocacy Accomplishments. Web.

Butts, J.A., & Buck J. (2000). The Teen Court Concept, as part of Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Web.

Dispute Resolution Foundation. Mediation. Web.

El Nasser, H. & Moss, D. (1996). Teen Crime Tosses Ball to Parents’ Court. USA Today. As cited in National Center for Policy Analysis, “Month in Review.” Web.

Faster With Mediation. Web.

Freeman, B. & Meisinger, J.G. (2000). Government Contract Feuds Ended Human Services Workers. Occupational Outlook Handbook 1996-1997. Web.

Legal Action Center. National Alcohol & Drugs Policy Advocacy. Web.

Lewis, M. (1997). Advocacy in Mediation: One Mediator’s View. Web.

Oregon Lawyer. (2005). Juvenile Law. Oregon Lawyer Directory Website. Web.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (1995). Juvenile Court Statistics. Web.

Stephani, A.J. (no date). Symposium: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Children. Vol. 71. University of Cincinnati Law. Web.

Stevenson, C.S., Larson, C.S., Carter, L.S., Gomby, D.S., Terman, D.L., & Behrman, R.E. (1996). The Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Today, The Juvenile Court: Analysis and Recommendations. Vol. 6, No. 3.

Schwerin, E.W. (1995). Mediation, Citizen Empowerment, and Transformational Politics. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger Publishers The Future of Children. Web.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex. (2005). Juvenile Courts. The Free Dictionary Website. Web.

United States Courts (US Courts). (1999). Understanding the Federal Courts. US Courts. Web.

What is Advocacy? Web.

Click Here To Order Now!