Unit 1: Crime in America Individual Project
Television portrays different facets of the justice system encompassing police or law enforcement, court system and procedures, and the correctional components or the prison system. Cop shows have been around since the popularity of television. Traditionally, cops have been portrayed as good guys and criminals as the bad guys. This has the effect of building a good reputation for law enforcement especially when television shows always end with the cops accosting criminals despite of the guile of the criminal mind. These television shows advocate the romanticist perspective of treating cops as ultimately good and moral. However, recent cop shows have ventured into the human side of law enforcement systems based on the recognition of realities such as the existence of varying levels of corruption within the police force. ( 2003) Shows like NYPD Blue, Third Watch and The Shield all tackle real issues, although sensationalized in certain instances, experienced by police officers and the police force in general.
NYPD Blue portrays police officers through various characters collectively working towards the pursuit of justice while trying to integrate their individual personal lives. This show offers a humanistic perspective into the lives of police officers and the operations of the police force by providing a background into the personal lives of the characters and how these affects their work, a look into the power plays to gain promotions affecting the work-related decisions of the characters, and the corruption of police officers resorting to crime. Third Watch focuses more on the risks involved in police work since the show tackles police officers, firefighters and paramedics on duty during the third watch, from 4 in the afternoon to 12 midnight, the period when crimes are mostly committed. It shows the bravery and excellence in law enforcement. The Shield takes-on a different perspective from the other shows since it uncovers the issues arising from the internal affairs division of police organizations. It shows the internal investigations made inside the police force for corruption and criminal activities committed by police officers themselves.
Court shows often focus on investigations for the acquisition of evidence in order to support a conviction or acquittal or the decision-making process involving the jury and/or the judge indicating fairness. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit describes the manner that police force and the court use the law in order to sympathize with the trauma of victims of sex crimes and help them achieve justice. This show focuses on the investigation process and the utilization of evidence in court in order to support the decision to convict criminals. People’s Court takes on the approach of introducing people to the court setting by portraying the actual court process involved in the resolution of the case based on actual court cases. The cases involve civil disputes involving family members, neighbors, business partners, and other actual relations. This shows a more realistic view of the court system. Judge Joe Brown finds humor in dispute resolution but presenting the dispute and its resolution in a matter of fact manner. The show is like a news report or documentary where the host interviews Judge regarding a dispute that people experience in their day-to-day lives and the judge offers a viable resolution to the dispute. The show borders more towards ‘FYI’ or ‘how to’ show on dispute resolution through the application of law but without showing the court proceedings involved.
Correctional components in television shows cover several themes, one is the hardships that inmates go through in prison another revolves around prison breaks while others look into the effectiveness of the correctional system. Arrested Development is a family show but it portrays how the convicted father of the family who happens to be rich has escaped prison and continues to elude law enforcement by hiding in his attic and using disguises in public. Prison Break is a series that portrays the story of a person sentenced to death for a crime that he did not commit. The show reflects on the weakness of the justice system in not having a full proof manner of ensuring that only the guilty meet a prison sentence and the weakness of the correctional systems in having loopholes allowing prison breaks. While America’s Most Wanted helps in the apprehension of criminals able to elude law enforcement by showing the pictures and criminal records of these people, the show indirectly reflects on the limitations of the penal system in reforming criminals. This is because almost all of the people forming part of the most wanted list are repeat offenders who have previously done jail time.
Overall, television shows obtain high ratings through sensationalism so that all these shows reflect varying degrees of sensationalism (1998). However, these shows take inspiration from various positive and negative perspectives of the justice system. Thus, these are fair representations of the justice system but viewer discretion is required in evaluating and developing views regarding the justice system based on television shows focused on the different aspects of the justice system.
Unit 1: Crime in America Discussion Board
What is your definition of justice?
Justice is broad term that has different definitions depending upon the situation. On a personal note, justice means fairness expressed through the act of treating people in the same way given similar circumstances or applying a set of agreed-upon rules for all people assumed to be aware of these rules.
According to the definition of justice you provided, was this sentence just? Why or why not?
Based on the above definition, the decision of the court to sentence Dale Park with the minimum penalty for first-degree manslaughter is just. This is because the rules covering the elements of the crime and procedures in determining the case have been followed. First-degree manslaughter when the following elements covering different scenarios are present. First scenario involves the following elements: there was an intention to cause serious physical injuries to another person but instead causes the death of the person or a third person. The second scenario covers the situation where there was an intent to cause the death of another person and actually causes the death of the person or a third person but the act does not constitute murder because of intervening influence of extreme emotional disturbance. The emotional condition of the accused constitutes a mitigating circumstance lowering the crime from murder to first-degree manslaughter. There are other scenarios constituting first-degree manslaughter but have no relationship to the case at hand. Based on the facts of the case, there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause of the death of his brother who was beset with cancer based on their alleged agreement to commit suicide. Although in the first attempt, the accused was only able to cause physical injuries it was clear from the facts that the intention was to cause death so that the second scenario applies. However, the death of the brother of the accused from gunshot inflicted by the accused cannot be considered as murder because of the intervening extreme emotional disturbance that the accused experienced during the commission of the act. The cancer diagnosis of his brother brought about extreme distress to the accused since the siblings experienced life together without having to experience long-term separation. Due to this, the accused was decided on causing the death of her brother and his death afterwards. The factor that separates first-degree manslaughter from murder is the malice. If there were malice, then the offense would have been murder but without it is lowered to first-degree manslaughter. Based on the facts of the case, there was no malicious intent on the part of the accused since he himself took the pills but these did not cause his death.
If you were the prosecutor in this case, would you have charged Dale Parak? Why?
Yes. Even if there was an agreement between the siblings to commit suicide, this is not a valid agreement, assisting in the suicide of another person is not condoned by law. We belong to a society recognizing and respecting the rule of law so that people are expected to comply with law and the justice system is expected to implement the law (2005). Moreover, the prosecutor serves the role of filing cases in behalf of the state as part of the implementation of law so that charging the accused constitutes a performance of this role.
If you were the judge in this case, how would you have sentenced Dale Parak? Why?
As a judge, determining the sentence of the accused depends on the considerations provided by law considering the particular circumstances of the case. The five-year sentence falls between the range of penalties for first-degree murder but it is in the diligent discretion of the court to determine the extent of the penalty considering the circumstances of the case (2003).
Unit 2: Policing Discussion Board
1. Do you agree that for police action to be "just," it must recognize the rights of individuals while holding them accountable to the social obligations defined by law? Support your position.
Yes. Justice in the performance of the work of law enforcement authorities means compliance with law. Justice exists when the police apply the law while complying with the law. This means that law enforcement authorities need to be knowledgeable about the law to enforce it effectively and conscious about their extent or limitations of their role in law enforcement. ( 2005) Under the law, all people are accorded equal rights regardless of race, sex, cultural background or creed. Equality in rights also extends to the legal status of individuals, whether they are criminals or non-criminals. This means that police officers need to respect the rights of all people in the conduct of their responsibilities whether they are accosting criminals or rendering assistance to non-criminals. However, equality in rights pertains is also largely contextual so that even if all people hold equal rights, the persistence of these rights depends upon the circumstances they are in. Criminals have placed themselves in situations where their right to liberty has been compromised by their own actions and in order to respect the right of the majority to security.
Moreover, the recognition of rights under the law constitutes a prerequisite to the imposition of social accountability for legal obligations ( 2005). This means that it is only after the rights of all people have been recognized that criminals can be made accountable for the contravention of the rights of other people. Without recognizing the rights of people, there will be no basis for imposing accountability since there is no violation in the first place as there is nothing to violate. Thus, recognitions of rights comprise the necessary requisite of criminal accountability.
2. Have the courts provided adequate protection to citizens against overzealous police officers? In which areas of search and seizure and interrogation law do you think the courts have not gone far enough? In which areas do you think the courts have gone too far? Support your answers.
The courts have in many circumstances extended protection to citizens against overzealous or fanatic police officers. These are expressed in the non-allowance of the courts of evidence obtained without a warrant, statements offered by the accused while undergoing threats from the investigating police officers, and even the dismissal of a case when the accused was arrested without the reason for doing so meeting the requirements of probable cause ( 2004). These conclusions result from the actions of police officers in overreaching the performance of their responsibilities to enforce the law. The seizure of evidence without a warrant because the police officer was adamant to immediately collect evidence before this can be destroyed would likely lead to the non-acceptance of the evidence in court. Threatening or abusing a suspect in order to get a confession due to the strong belief of the investigating officer regarding the guilt of the suspect would work against the purpose intended by the police officer in forcing a confession. Strong beliefs regarding the guilt of the accused due to biases or personal knowledge about a person does not necessary translate to probable cause and arresting a person without probable cause would likely result to the dismissal of the case and even to the filing of a civil case for damages against the police officer and the police force.
However, the courts have also experienced the brunt of criticisms due to the limitation of their active role in guarding against overzealous police officers. Concurrently, the courts have not gone far enough in enforcing certain aspects of seizure and interrogation but also have gone too far in other related areas of this legal sphere defeating its policy-making role. Courts play a dual role in the justice system. On one hand, courts adjudicate disputes through the interpretation of laws in application to the circumstances of actual cases and on the other hand courts develop policies through jurisprudence. ( 2004)
Based on these considerations, the courts have not gone far enough in their policy-making role. This is expressed in the persistence of the overzealous actions of law enforcement indicating complacency due to the lack of a strong venue that provides disincentives for the prevention of these actions. Clearly, the continued proliferation of fanaticism among law enforcement authorities in the performance of their work shows that the court has not gone far enough in actively pursuing these police officers through the use of court infrastructure and processes to deter this type of behavior. Police officers fanatic in their work do not recognize the court as a strong disincentive for their actions so that the court may have been liberal to a certain extent. Moreover, the courts have gone too far in persistence of the status quo on seizure and interrogations laws that again defeat its policy-making role. The courts, in allowing the continued commission of overzealousness by some police officers for too long can no longer be condoned. Although the courts are not legislators, they hold significant policy-making powers that would enable them to change legal violations and promote justice.
Unit 2: Policing Individual Project
Introduction
The weaknesses of the police force that the 9/11 terrorist attacks have given accorded importance do not center towards the unsoundness of the existing organization of the US police force but focused on the lack of channels of coordination and cooperation and the limited modes of communication between the different agencies. This implies that even with the merging of the US police force into a single organizational unit with the problems of coordination and communication remains, the move would not make a significant difference in law enforcement efficiency and crime prevention. However, in considering the merger issue, the advantages and disadvantages potentially derive from the process would determine whether merger is viable in the United States in the context of the efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks.
Considerations Condemning Police Force Merger
First consideration is the jurisdictional issue. The rationale for the fragmentation of the police force into different units is jurisdiction, which pertains to the delineation or limitation in the geographic and functional responsibilities of different law enforcement units. Geographic jurisdiction refers to the identification of the responsibilities of law enforcement authorities according to their unit. National matters are handled by a different law enforcement unit while matters involving the different states are covered by the state police. Within the states, county affairs are the focus of county-level law enforcement authorities. Functional jurisdiction refers to the specific distribution of tasks among and within law enforcement units such as the distinction between federal and state crimes. With jurisdiction come rules and regulations facilitating the extent of responsibilities of the different units. (2002)
Jurisdiction benefits law enforcement through the establishment of specific responsibilities that certain units should focus on. Due to this extent of focus, details and the specifics of the various areas of law enforcement are met by the unit. Federal police are able to focus on national security issues and other problems affecting the country as a whole, state police can focus on the specific law enforcement problems occurring within the state without having to take responsibility for other states unless crimes are committed across states, and county police are able to focus on the problems of the immediate community. However, jurisdiction may also create disadvantages to law enforcement without a clear and directed mode of coordination between the different units. When a unit is solely focused on jurisdictional issues without being apprised of other issues in the different jurisdictions, it would be difficult to gain the cooperation of these units in instances requiring joint or coordinated efforts.
Second consideration is the duplication of laws (2006). It is true that the segregation of law enforcement into units leads to the enactment of different jurisdictional laws. This works because the enactment of jurisdiction-based laws means that these capture the particular context of the jurisdiction positively implying on the effectiveness and applicability of the laws. Effective laws then supports the efforts of the police force in law enforcement in achieving desired objectives. However, it is also true that the enactment of jurisdictional laws could lead to duplication involving federal and state legislations. Even while duplication does not necessarily result to legal complications since it is only through inconsistencies that problems arise, it cannot be discounted that the segregating police force into jurisdictions open the possibility of statutory duplications, which could have adverse results in law enforcement since duplications means conflict in the scope of responsibilities of the different jurisdictions.
Third consideration is control over the police function. This is important since, law enforcement involves different tasks and a significant number of police officers to cover the geographical jurisdiction and perform various tasks. (2002) Moreover, law enforcement is a structured and organized endeavor involving procedures and rules of engagement requiring a significant level of control starting with training and recruitment, assignment of responsibilities, accountability evaluation, and other aspects of law enforcement. In addition, law enforcement involves a concerted action so that it is important to direct the efforts of all police officers towards the achievement of the predetermined goals. In this consideration, control is achieved in a police force divided into units because the administering person or body is able to keep tabs of the activities of the members of the police unit and decision-making is made at the division level. Although control can also be obtained in a merged police force through the establishment of channels of accountability and checks, the sheer size of the force would make it difficult to gain significant levels of control and decision-making may not also capture all issues arising from the bottom rung of the organization.
Fourth consideration, related to the previous factor, is the issue of corruption. Corruption results from a complacent system that creates opportunities for people to appropriate funds for their personal motive or benefit. (2006) A police force divided in jurisdictional units mean that these units receive a portion of the revenue allocated for law enforcement. Since, the units receive a designated budget to support their operations it is imperative that the units account for the spending of the budget. This means that at smallest unit of law enforcement, there is already accountability. In the case of a merged police force, the monetary allocation is received by the top echelon of the law enforcement organization to be distributed downwards to the entire police force. This means that accountability exists at the top level. In comparing the two situations, it is easier to commit unlawful appropriation in a merged relative to a jurisdictionally divided police force.
Conclusion
Based on the considerations discussed above, it becomes apparent that merging the US police force results to more problems than retaining the current system. This is because the two out of the four considerations favored the retention of the current system while the other two considerations offer both advantages and disadvantages. On a different note, the possibility of merging the police force would not necessitate the merger of the criminal justice system since this would destroy the entire justice system when the stability of the justice system supports its viability and persistence.
Unit 3: Adjudication Individual Project
1. What is the dual-court system? Why do we have a dual-court system in America? Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to a monolithic court system? Would such a system be effective?
Dual-court system in the United States refers to the organization of the court system into two general hierarchical groups: the federal and state courts. The federal court system is comprised of the constitutional courts covering the US Supreme Court and Inferior Court as regular courts, Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit including the District Courts and the US Court of International Trade, and Legislative Courts covering the territorial courts, US Tax Court and other courts. The state court system is made-up of the State Supreme Courts, Intermediate Appeals Court, State Trial Courts, and the Municipal and other Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. The dual-court system in the United States means that the country has two major court systems on the federal and state level. (1997)
The dual-court system in America developed out of the federal system that established the country. The founders of the American nation, segregated into different states, agreed to establish the United States of America but allowing the different states to retain legislative authority as well a judicial autonomy from the federal government. ( 1997) Retention of the state courts together with the freedom of the states to enact laws means that the courts serve as venues in the adjudication of disputes using these state legislations. The development of the federal courts benefited the country in having a venue for the enforcement of rights and the determination of legal issues affecting the nation as a whole. Federalism necessitated the development of the dual-court system.
Contemplating a US single court system appears to be impossible because of the reality that the dual-court system is made-up of different autonomous courts applying different legislations particularly in the judicial system of the different states (Rabe and Champion, 2001). This implies that unifying the court system entails the concurrent enactment by legislature of laws applicable to all state jurisdictions. However, on second thought, a single court system may not be totally impossible because as an organization, the courts are designed to work in a hierarchical manner with the decision of the lower courts possibly raised to the higher courts on appeal and the Supreme Court having the final determining power over legal issues unresolved in the lower courts (Rabe and Champion, 2001). This means that despite the dual-court system, the judicial courts operate in a coordinated manner as a single system. Thus, efforts towards the determination of ways of unifying the dual-court system could result to the establishment of a monolithic judicial system.
However, the feasibility of developing a monolithic court system in the United States is just one part of the question. The other part of the question lies in the effectiveness of the single court system. Effectiveness is determined by several factors, one of which is how well legislations have been nationalized in order to support the operation of the court system as a single monolithic organization. Another factor is the reorientation and adjustment of the designation of jurisdictional task limitations. Overall, the issues of effectiveness are complex involving a radical and protracted change in the judicial system and without any precedent there are no established measures for viability.
2. Describe the various sentencing goals discussed in this unit. Which of these goals do you find most acceptable as the primary goal of sentencing? How might your choice of goal vary with the type of offense? Can you envision any circumstances which might make your choice less acceptable?
Sentencing is a salient distinguishing factor between crimes and civil infringement or torts. Crimes are subject to punishment through sentencing. Consequently, sentencing covers the five goals of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restoration. Each of these goals has their own purpose and function. Deterrence goal is directed towards the discontinuance of the commission of similar crimes in the future by the sentenced person and other people due to the exemplary imposition of the sentence. Incapacitation goal is directed towards ensuring that the sentenced individual is restrained from further committing other crimes. Rehabilitation goal targets the perspective of providing reform support to criminals instead of the imposition of punishment. Retribution goal as punishment oriented implies taking revenge on the criminal through a just punishment. Restoration goal is directed towards the aggrieved party so that this involves the repayment of criminals of the damage and loss they have inflicted upon the aggrieved parties and to society. (2005)
Among these goals, deterrence stands out as the primary goal of sentencing. This is because deterrence offers long-term and encompassing goal against criminal activity (2000). General deterrence seeks to prevent the commission of similar crimes by example while specific deterrence aims to prevent the criminal from going back to criminal activities. As a preventive measure, deterrence promises the most important goal for sentencing criminals because it targets the propensity for the commission of crimes.
Deterrence encompasses the different types of offenses, provided that the sentence imposed upon criminals varies but commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed. This implies that regardless of the types of offences committed the deterrence goal for sentencing stands as having the most significance. For light offenses a sentence or penalty generally perceived to be burdensome upon the individual but commensurate to the crime committed would discourage other people from committing even less serious crimes. Serious crimes entail a more burdensome sentence upon criminals translated into longer residence in the correctional system together with other derivative punishments connected to the sentence. It is the weight of the burden attached to the sentences for different offenses that motivates the non-commission of crimes by the sentenced individual or by other people knowledgeable about the burden of the sentence for the commission of crimes.
However, deterrence is not a full proof goal for sentencing. This is because of the variance in the reaction of people towards the burden attached to the sentence. While it is true that the sentence are determined for different crimes are based upon the general perceptions of society towards the burdens that different extents of sentences provide, subjectivity and relativity of individuals means that there will always be people perceiving the sentence as not burdensome at all or attaching a lower weight towards the burden attached to the sentence, indicating a greater propensity for these people to commit crimes regardless of the expectation of being sentenced when caught and found guilty. Ultimately, individuality and the criminal mind make limit the deterrence goal (2004).
Unit 3: Adjudication Discussion Board
How common is it for an individual to be wrongfully convicted in our criminal justice system? Does the criminal justice system have adequate protections in place minimizing the risk that innocent people could get put behind bars or even executed? What additional protections would you recommend?
The decision in Kansas v Marsh adjudicated in January 29, 2006 provides cites the error rate in the case of felony convictions as .027 percent. This means that the rate of success in felony conviction in the United States is 99.973 percent. This was interpreted as indicating a high level of accuracy in felony convictions in the country because only 27 felony convictions out of every 100,000 convictions are factually wrong. The rate is based on the accuracy contributed by DNA-based evidence. However, (2006) investigated this rate and propounded that the rate is actually much higher. An investigation of exonerations through DNA of people convicted for capital rape-murders in the 1980s shows that only 67 percent of these cases yielded usable DNA to be subjected to analysis. The consideration of these number resulted to a 3.3 percent factually wrongful conviction at the least or 5 percent if an error rate in calculation is considered. This translates to 3,300 to 5,000 wrongful convictions for every 100,000 convictions for the crime of rape-murder. This is a much significant number when compared to the citation in the Kansas v Marsh case. These findings are subject to criticisms in terms of the manner of calculation and the variables considered, but regardless of the rate of error in felony convictions, the fact remains that errors do occur in the current justice system of the United States so that wrongful convictions can and do happen. It is difficult to determine the commonality of occurrence of wrongful convictions but it is important to note that people get wrongfully accused in the United States justice system.
Despite the limitations and weaknesses of the criminal justice system allowing the conviction of a number of innocent people, it has also provided certain measures through which wrongful convictions can be preventive or minimized. In relation to policy support, the Innocence Protection Act 2004 was enacted to address the issue of wrongful convictions in the country. The legislation holds the dual purpose of expanding access to post-conviction DNA analysis as well as improving the professional standards applicable to counsel in cases involving crimes punishable by death. Despite the differences in the versions presented by the House of Representatives and the Senate, the bills commonly advocated the availability of DNA testing for inmates in both federal and state correctional facilities convicted for capital and non-capital offenses as well as encouraged state justice systems to enhance the proficiency and service quality of appointed defense counsels in capital cases. (2006) In relation to evidence support, DNA testing and analysis allows greater accuracy in the evidence presented in court used to support a conviction in capital crimes ( 2003). Not only is DNA a security for the reliability of evidence but it is also a way of exonerating prisoners previously convicted of crimes. Although exoneration cannot completely restore the lives of the people who have already served prison terms of 7 years on the average with some in jail for 17 years, establishing DNA testing systems that support accuracy would ensure the prevention or at the least the minimization of wrongful convictions together with the exoneration of the people wrongfully convicted. Moreover, DNA testing also supports the apprehension of the real criminal. In terms of representation in the judicial system, a security measure against wrongful convictions is the encouragement of competent counsel. Competence addresses the systematic problems including mistakes in eyewitness identification, law enforcement misconduct, coerced confessions, and other factors that DNA testing cannot cover. (2003) Having an incompetence counsel especially when charged with a capital offense could lead to wrongful conviction in instances where the counsel failed to investigate all aspects of the case in order to adduce all evidence, which would support the fair resolution of the case or failing to take notice of procedural and evidentiary flaws, which could strengthen the acquittal of the accused. Competence is achieved through the enforcement of higher standards in the legal profession.
These specific safeguards against wrongful conviction comprise positive steps supporting both the exoneration of innocent people sent to jail as well as the minimization of wrongful convictions. However, these only become effective in the context of a justice system publicly perceived as reliable. This is because even with the Innocence Protection Act 2004, DNA testing and counsel competence, these may not optimally work if the public views the justice system as unreliable. While these safeguards build on the reliability of the justice system, reliability should be achieved in general involving addressing corruption in the system, biases and discrimination among the people working in the justice system such as judges, counsels and law enforcement officers against accused individuals, and other means of strengthening the principles upon which the entire justice system is based.
Unit 4: Corrections Group Work (5 pages)
Are the lives of prison inmates reflective of the society at large?
Introduction
The lives of prison inmates reflect on society in terms of the causes influencing the commission of crime and the treatment of prison inmates. Crime is directly linked to the political, economic and socio-cultural conditions of society that do not distinguish its influence in terms of gender. Political influences to the crime rate encompass the lack of policy guidance focusing on the crime prevention agenda, the lack of prioritization of the significant areas of change to achieve minimal crime rates, and the lack of resource support to the various aspects of the criminal justice system such as law enforcement, legal profession, courts and the correctional institutions in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals in these different areas. A society allowing its government to devalue policy support for the prevention of crime in effect condones the commission of crime and the imprisonment of its members. Economic influences that allow the commission of crime in society include deprivation or the lack of opportunities for achieving well-being. Poverty is the most salient economic factor influencing the commission of crimes. A society that experiences the brunt of poverty but does nothing to alleviate this condition expects its members to commit crimes as a response to the lack of opportunities to get past poverty and its prison system to host men and women convicted of crimes. Socio-cultural influences covers the demise of society’s value system through the persistence of biases and discrimination and the lack of cooperation in order to achieve commonly desired results from concerted action. Apart from these, the treatment of prisoners also reflect on society’s perspective on crime, its role in addressing the factors that influence the commission of crime, and the manner of treating inmates in order to meet the objective of making them productive members of society after serving their sentence. Although the causal and reflective relationship of imprisonment and society applies in general, it cannot be denied that there is a difference in the lives of men and women inside the prison system due to concurrent differences in society.
Gender-Based Lifestyles in Correctional Institutions & Outside the Prison Walls
The link between gender-based lifestyles inside and outside of the prison walls is through the consideration of the previous socialization process through which prisoners go through as comprising the context of their lives in prison. It is through their contacts with criminal elements that facilitate the process of eventual prisonization or association with the prison system. (1993) This means that the lifestyle of people outside of prison and their influences determine their integration, adjustment and survival in the prison system. Thus, the culture of the society from which prisoners emanate is brought inside the prison. The difference between the lifestyle inside and outside of prison differs only through the dynamics of limited freedom and mobility on the part of men and women inside prisons.
The difference in the lifestyle inside and outside of the prison is largely based on the change in gender roles played by men and women as they enter the prison system. Child rearing patterns outside of the prison system falls under the responsibility of both parents with varying levels of prominence for women in certain socio-cultural groups. For parents/spouses inside the prison system, responsibility for the children does not necessarily fall upon the spouse outside of prison because of gender differences. If the male spouse is imprisoned, the children commonly remain with the wife but if the female spouse is incarcerated, care for the children usually go to other family members. This is more pronounced in social groups that highly attribute child rearing to women. ( 1983; 2000) The implication of this is that women have a greater attachment to their children and the responsibility of child rearing so that women inside the prison system relative to men experience greater difficulties in dealing with the separation from their children and not being able to comply with their child rearing responsibilities. This further implies that women inside the prison relative to those outside the prison carry the burdens related to their children.
Apart from gender roles, gender-based values are also brought inside the prison system resulting to different prison lifestyles ( 1998; 2002). Female prisoners are characterized as generally traditional by being primarily concerned with their families, children and other relations left outside of the prison system (1993). Men on the other hand do not carry as much concern for these factors so that their life in prison involves their personal adjustment and survival in the tough environment. This implies that among males, men inside the prison environment have to deal with the added pressure of survival while among females, women inside the prison deal with family concerns due to separation.
Gender-based relationship building constitutes another factor differentiating male and female lifestyles inside and outside the prison. In terms of relationships men and women outside of the prison system freely engage in relationships based on gender-based factors such as values and preferences while men and women inside the prison system live in an enclosed space giving them no choice but to develop varying levels of relationship with other inmates. Inside the prison system, men and women differ in relationship building. Men inside the prison tend to center on their individual time, being tough, and highly depending upon their strength and ability to withstand pressures while lifestyles of women inside the prison is tied to their familial concerns. (1995;1998) This implies that women tend to develop small-group relationships with other women inmates to mimic the family.
Roles of Correction Officers in the Prison "Society"
Correction officers take charge of the safety and security of persons placed under the correctional institutions. Roles of correction officers include the maintenance of order inside the prison environment, enforcement of rules and regulations, and support during inmate counseling. To ensure obedience to prison rules, inmates are regularly monitored in their day-to-day activities. Officers inspect prison facilities to ensure safety and security. Reports of monitoring and observation are logged. Prisoner visitation hours are also monitored. Counseling may also become necessary for some prisoners. (2002) Thus, in the prison system, correction officers facilitate the organized flow of activities and the interaction of inmates to maintain social order.
However, like in a wider society, the prison system also creates problems in the prison society as influenced by the ills in the contextual environment. Commonly occurring litigation issues concerning prisoners rights includes the deliberate indifference towards the serious medical needs of prisoners, deliberate indifference towards the mental health conditions of prisoners, reckless disregard for the safety of prisoners causing harm or death from fellow prisoners or correction officers. These violations of prisoners rights emanates from the discriminatory attitude of society towards inmates translated into the personal biases of correction officers leading to abuse of power or negligence in the fulfillment of the responsibilities of keeping peace and order inside the prison system. (1996) Disregard for prisoners rights reflects the dominant perspectives of the larger society.
Types of Offenders that Influence Life Behind Bars
The prison environment is one that is isolated from the rest of the community. Within the prison, the inmates may also be separate from the prison guards and other staff. During the period of their stay in the prison environment, the inmates interact among themselves creating a set of different beliefs, attitudes, and practices adopted by new inmates perpetuating it as a distinct sub-culture. ( 2005) The nature and characteristics of the prison subculture is influenced by the dominating types of offenders while in the outside society incarcerated for violent crimes such as rape, murder, robbery and assault.
Conclusion
In more ways than we can imagine, prison lifestyles is a smaller mirror of larger society because it is the ills of society that inluences the commission of crime and the increase in the number of people in prison and it is also the degradation of the values of society that determines the treatment of prisoners. In relation to gender differences of people inside and outside of the prison system, the socialization process of people outside of the prison system leading to the dvelopment of beliefs and perspectives are brought into the prison system. The biases and discriminatory views of society translated into the personal perspective of correction officers and other staff also largely affects the growth of violations of prisoners rights.
Unit 4: Corrections Discussion Board
Should the government be able to give up its responsibility for the custody of an individual and engage in contracts with private organizations to provide privatization of prisons and jails? Assume this includes only convicted offenders.
Rationale for Government Responsibility over Prison Systems
Society has established the prison system as the fundamental means by which it can exercise justice through the punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence of offenders. Since this role rests upon society, the prison systems have been directed by the government, particularly through government empowered bodies established specifically to handle corrections systems. It is public interest that motivated the imposition of the government responsibility towards the management of prison systems. Public responsibility is comparable to private responsibility in that the former advocates the interests of the general public to maintain peace and order through the rule of law. Legal infractions are discouraged through the imposition of penalties for legal infractions while private responsibility only advocates the personal interests of individuals or groups relative to peace and order which does not necessarily significantly reflect the public interest. In economic terms, public and private interests work towards different directions with public interest prioritizing public welfare before financial gains while private interest is generally geared towards the individual goal of financial viability. These differences in public and private interests clarify the issue of government’s responsibility towards the management of prison systems amidst the increasing popularity of moves towards the privatization of prison systems with privatization arrangements differing in terms of government control.
Reasons & Dynamics of Privatization
Ultimately cost is the underlying reason for the privatization of prison systems. The cost of crime positively moves with the increasing crime rate. In the 1990s the estimated cost of crime exceeded $6 billion annually for the construction of prison infrastructures in order to accommodate the inmate population growth. The amount does not include the expenses incurred by the government for employing prison guards, administrators, and food, education and health service providers. At present, the cost is estimated to have doubled. ( 1997) By permitting private enterprises to manage prison systems, the costs associate with corrections operations would not be taken directly from taxpayers’ money. However, cost-saving benefit for the government has been questioned due to the difficulties involved in comparing cost incurred by the government and private companies to determine whether the government saves from privatization. On one hand, although exact figures are impossible to cough-up, privatization avoids the cost factors of civil service regulation, high pension and improved productivity while on the other hand, government may incur costs in the monitoring of privatized prison systems since the government would still maintain certain regulatory functions towards these institutions. (1996)
Concurrently, profit is the motivating factor behind the interest of private firms to engage in the management of prison systems. This is highlighted by the participation of fast food icons such as Kentucky Fried Chicken in financing these ventures. Although, privatization is linked to efficiency, the profit motive could defeat the public interest of punishing, rehabilitating and deterring crimes since private enterprises would prefer more people inside the prison systems. (2005)
Relinquishment of Government Responsibility to Prison Systems
In considering the pros and cons of privatization in the context of the relinquishment of government of its management of prison systems, the solution rests in the balance between public welfare and efficiency, with efficiency covering cost, operations and managerial aspects. Two possible ways arise that could possibly strike the balance between public welfare and efficiency. First option is reforming the government body directly tasked to manage prison systems including policy and resource support in order to enhance efficiency. The government should also develop programs that address the core causes for rising criminality. In making government efficient, public welfare is optimized. Second option is the privatization of the prison systems but through non-profit organizations capable of handling the management of correctional institutions. Removing the profit factor in the management of prison systems ensures that correctional institutions transferred to the private sector would be organized around principles targeting the reshaping of criminals into productive and contributing citizens after their release from prison. Thus, government has the option to retain its responsibility over the management of prison systems but enhance the efficiency of its organizational, operational and managerial infrastructures or relinquish is management function but do so to capable non-profit organizations in order to ensure public welfare with efficiency.
Unit 5: Special Topics Individual Project (6 pages)
One of the major arguments against the formation of a true international criminal justice agency is the loss of national sovereignty for the countries involved. Assume you have been asked to propose a true international criminal justice system; how would you address this issue?
Formation of a True International Criminal Justice Agency
Active moves towards the establishment of an international criminal justice system proliferated in the 1990s with the creation of tribunals geared towards the adjudication of human rights violations linked to hostilities with the legislative support of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The culmination of the efforts towards the development of an international criminal justice system was the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. (1998; 2006) The ICC serves as an independent and permanent court responsible for trying persons accused of grave political crimes. The establishment of the international judicial system catalyzed sovereignty issues. If the ICC is empowered to invalidate decisions of national courts over issues covered by its jurisdiction, this would to the diminished jurisdictional authority of the national courts but if the ICC has no power to invalidate decisions of national courts, this could result to the possible abuse of national courts due to the lacks of infrastructure for judicial checks (2006). Moreover, the sovereignty issue spills over to the other components of the justice system, police or law enforcement and corrections or penal systems. Based on the nature of the existing international criminal justice system and the issue of sovereignty in its workings, the formation of a true criminal justice system encompasses requires the settlement of the sovereignty dynamics.
Proposed Formation of a True International Criminal Justice Agency
Creating an international criminal justice agency involves a consideration of the organizational dynamics of the three components of the system (police, courts and corrections), delineation of functions of the different components, the geographic base of these components, and the distinct jurisdictional authority in the context of the settlement of the issue of the diminishing of national sovereignty.
Police Component of the System
Currently, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) stands as the largest police organization working on an international scale since it now has 186 member states since its inception in 1923. INTERPOL performs the three core functions. First is securing police communications service globally through the I-24/7 communications system providing national police in different states with access to a common platform for sharing informational on criminality and criminals to facilitate the apprehension of criminals moving across borders. Second is the service offering for operational data repositories and databases accessible to law enforcement authorities around the world. The information database contains criminal records, DNA profiles, and important stolen properties including vehicles, art works and passports. Third is operational support service offering since INTERPOL provides operational and emergency support services to national law enforcement agencies particularly in cases involving terrorism, organized crime, drug-related crimes, human trafficking, and high-tech and financial crimes. (2006)
Despite the invaluable support provided by INTERPOL to national law enforcement agencies, its core functions is too limited for the purposes of an international criminal justice system because it only serves as support for the national criminal justice systems seeking to apprehend and try criminals operating internationally. This means that the law enforcement component of the international criminal justice systems should be comprised of an international organization, headed and directed on an international scale with sub-units in every state concurrently divided into regional, national and sub-national units. This function enhances information sharing and coordination in the apprehension of fugitives regardless of wherever country they choose to flee. In order to minimize the costs and time needed in establishing an international law enforcement organization, the scope of the functions of the INTERPOL could be expanded to head the international police force. Since the General Secretariat of the INTERPOL is based in Lyon, France, this geographic base could be retained to save on infrastructure cost. There would be regional and national organization branches in every state.
Personnel recruitment and training in the expanded INTERPOL would be coordinated internationally for uniformity but the members of the previous national law enforcement organizations would remain despite the integration of the national police under the expanded INTERPOL. While the members of the national police force remains, recruitment and training would be directed on an international scale but applied on a national level. The important thing is the existence of a uniform method of recruitment and training applied in the particular context of every state.
Overall, the expanded INTERPOL holds the authority for the investigation and apprehension of criminals around the world. It serves as the international police organization tasked with the coordination of the law enforcement across the different states. These functions characterize a true international police force that necessitates the surrender of the states of their sovereignty with regard to law enforcement. In effect, states have to give up an aspect of their self-governance in the interest of reaping the benefits of establishing a true international police force.
Court Component of the System
The International Criminal Court (ICC) serves as the present epitome of the international criminal justice system. Its jurisdiction according to Article 5 of the Rome Treaty includes “(a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression”. (ICC, 2006) Although these are crimes involving violence, these crimes are highly political in nature. Since the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to political crimes, it does not constitute a truly international juridical system since it does not encompass the crimes covered by the expanded INTERPOL. In the same manner, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is also limited to the statutory disputes among states and legal issues raised by international organizations (2006).
The function of the true international criminal court system includes jurisdiction to adjudicate the crimes covered by the jurisdiction of the expanded INTERPOL. In terms of organizational arrangement, there would be a single High Court equivalent to the Supreme Court in the national level. Under the International Supreme Court are regional and national level courts tacking charge of criminal cases covered by their geographic jurisdictions. The membership of the International Supreme Court has to be expanded in order to accommodate the range of cases raised on appeal for resolution. Political crimes would still remain under the jurisdiction of the ICC as a special court. This mode of organization and scope of functions comprise a truly international criminal justice system entailing the surrender of states of aspects of their sovereignty since there an international court together with an international police force requires the creation of a uniform law recognized and applicable to all states. Base-wise it would be fitting to establish the International Supreme Court in Hague, The Netherlands, where the ICC has been established.
In terms of recruitment and training, a uniform standard for the legal profession and the judicial officers need to be established and guidelines for selection of judicial officers should be developed in order to facilitate a uniform regulation of the legal procession and court operations.
The international court system headed by the International Supreme Court holds judicial power on an international scale requiring the states to relegate judicial sovereignty in the interest of achieving an international criminal justice system.
Corrections Component of the System
The corrections component of the international criminal justice agency involves the integration of the national penal systems under a single international managing organization. Organizationally, there is need to establish an international corrections unit in-charge of the management of international corrections systems around the world. Since the court system is hierarchically divided into regional and national branches, correction systems would also be established on a regional and national level. The national corrections systems would be retained but placed under the management of the International Corrections Unit in order to facilitate uniformity and consistency. In addition, regional correctional institutions would be established per region at the agreed upon locations. Criminals charged for crimes on an international scale would be imprisoned in the regional level correction systems while criminals infringing the law on a national level would be incarcerated at the national level penal institutions. The headquarters of the International Corrections Unit would be in Lyon, France to facilitate coordination with the international law enforcement organization.
Recruitment and training of corrections officers will be coordinated on an international level necessitating the development of international standards and guidelines especially in the determination of the members of the International Corrections Unit headquarters and regional institutions. While the human organization members at the national institutions remain the same, their training and recruitment would apply the international standard.
In effect, the International Corrections Unit holds authority for all regional and national corrections systems requiring states to transfer certain aspects of their sovereign rule in order to establish the international penal system as a component of a true international criminal justice system.
National Sovereignty & Internationalization Dynamics
Achieving a truly international criminal justice system involves the relegation of states of aspects of their sovereign governance, if it is at all divisible, or sovereignty in order to accommodate international law enforcement organization, international court system, and the international corrections systems. Furthermore, a truly successful international criminal justice system works best with the establishment of a single world government to facilitate the alignment of these systems with other political infrastructures (1998). Thus, realistically, having a true international criminal justice system is impossible unless the states agree to a single international government. This means that the proposed international criminal justice system only works when viewed with a utopian perspective or when things are held constant.
Unit 5: Special Topics Discussion Board
How much will the implementation of technology and further capabilities of the Internet affect the traditional criminal justice system in the 21st Century?
The technological innovative character of the internet radically affects the traditional criminal justice system in a divergent manner due to the proliferation of new internet-based crimes and the commission of high-technology crimes together with the development of enhanced tools favoring the achievement of fairness in the justice system. These changes require radical deviation from the traditional criminal justice organizations, perspectives and operations. Deviation from the traditional criminal justice system is expressed through its police, court and corrections components.
Police component of the criminal justice system operates as the investigative and arresting arm of the criminal justice system. In respecting the human rights and civil liberties of individuals, law enforcement authorities need to have probable cause to support the granting of a warrant of arrest or search warrant unless the police witnessed a crime as it is being committed in which case there is no need for an arrest warrant. To support the just investigation and arrest of individuals that do not violate their rights, technology and the internet functions exist that enhances traditional systems. One technology available is concealed weapons detection, a device that allows law enforcement agents to determine whether the person being investigated is armed even while at a short distance from the person (1997). This provides the police with time to prepare and react accordingly. This technology addresses the countless injuries and deaths of police officers in accosting persons without the knowledge that they are armed. Another justice system enhancement beneficial to the police is internet-based information technology (1997). This involves the integrated database systems of state police departments together with the federal and INTERPOL databases enabling police officers to identify the persons being investigated to determine outstanding warrants and criminal backgrounds by searching through the database. This enables police officers to obtain crucial information before acting relative to a person with a previous criminal record or a fugitive from justice and prevent undue injuries or deaths. Still another innovation is technology of knowledge or the efficient sharing of best practices in law enforcement among the various agencies in order to improve the operations of every unit and enhance the knowledge of police officers (1997). A good thing about knowledge sharing is that best practices derived from actual experiences are imparted to all police officers, which had limited application in the traditional justice system. These are cost-effective technologies involving a certain degree of budget allocation for the acquisition of the concealed weapons detection gadgets and the education and training of police offices on information technology and knowledge transfer.
Court component of the criminal justice system comprise the venue for the presentation of evidence and arguments of disputing parties. As such, the court works in the interest of fairness. To achieve a fair resolution of the case, DNA technology offers high degrees of evidential accuracy (1997), which provides invaluable support to the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused as well as the identification of the real culprit in case the accused has been found to be innocent. This addresses the previous problems incurred by the court in solely relying upon testimonies and hearsay evidence in deciding cases especially in the context of the significant number of cases of people exonerated due to their imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. Cases of wrongful conviction would be radically prevented or minimized with DNA technology. The integration of DNA testing proves successful due to the high resilience of the courts to technologies and enhanced practices in the court system. The utilization of DNA testing in the courts involves costs to the parties involved and the state in presenting prosecution evidence together with the solicitation of expert knowledge on the technical understanding or interpretation of DNA testing.
Corrections component of the criminal justice system involves management of prison systems working for the purpose of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restoration. Corrections officers also need to maintain safety and security within the prison environment. Technology is available to enhance the performance of this task. Drug testing technology enables prison officers to determine whether prisoners are able to smuggle drugs into the prison system and address the problem accordingly. Concealed weapons detection technology would also enable corrections officers to determine the existence of weapons, smuggled into the prison or made from raw materials accessible to prisoners. (1997 Through these technologies, prison management is able to avert violence through the use of weapons inside the system, which also causes injuries and death to prison officers. Apart from these, technology of knowledge or the transfer of experiential knowledge on corrections management (1997) would improve the operations of prison systems.
Crime rate has somewhat increased in America. It is not because the political power is corrupted or anything. But, it is the smartness of criminal minds that they now leave little to no evidence at the scene of crime.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Kristo
Personal Injury Attorney Tempa