Policy Made and Implemented in Criminal Justice - Essay Example

Midterm Essay Questions 1. Explain how policy is made and implemented in criminal justice The above figure is adopted from the conceptualization of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration, as prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997. It presents a diagram of the policy and processes involved in policy-making and implementation in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system of the US is based on the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, primarily on its report, “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society” (Walker, 1980). There were many recommendations under this report which eventually were used in setting policy on the prevention and management of crime (Walker, 1980). Through the commission, a systems approach to criminal justice was employed and an improved coordination for law enforcement officers, courts and correctional institutions was also established. The criminal system is based on the creation of laws, the adjudication of these laws through the courts, and the implementation of correctional processes for various transgressions (Fuller, 2005). An offender would have an initial contact with the criminal system through the police officers, who are the primary enforcers of the laws (Fuller, 2005). These officers are usually also tasked with the investigation of violations of the law and the arrest of suspected or known offenders. As arresting officers, they may sometimes be supported by federal officers, especially where suspects cross state lines or pose a more significant danger to a larger population or territory (Fuller, 2005). Where necessary, the law enforcement agencies, as well as the police officers have the power to apply force and other means in order to serve arrest warrants and ensure public safety (Hanes and Hanes, 2005). Once the criminal offender or suspect is arrested, the criminal court systems are next involved in the criminal justice system. These courts settle disputes and ensure that justice and legal provisions are followed (Walker, 1980). There are various individuals involved in this system – the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense lawyers. The judge is usually the individual appointed based on appropriate qualifications to objectively evaluate the merits of the case and pass judgment over the issues in the case (Walker, 1980). In the US, the adversarial system is being; this is where both parties are given the opportunity to present their side before the courts (Friedman, 1993). The case is then awarded to the party who makes the most compelling argument based on legal provisions. The prosecutors bring about charges against individuals or corporate entities for violations of the criminal laws (Friedman, 1993). It is their duty to prove that a crime has been committed by the accused party. On the other side, the defense attorney refutes the evidence presented against the accused and establishes the accused party’s defense (Walker, 1980). The final adjudication is then made by a third party – a judge or a jury. Where the accused party admits guilt, the process would be shorter and the judgment is rendered immediately by the judge. Plea bargaining is also often arranged between the parties in order to establish a compromise while still ensuring that the interests of criminal justice are served (Fuller, 2005). After sentencing is carried out by the judge or the jury, the decision is then imposed. For guilty parties, punishment is often based on the offense committed. Punishment often comes in the form of imprisonment or executions with or without corresponding fines and damages. Parole or probation arrangements may be imposed based on the judges’ discretion according to the set circumstances involved (Fuller, 2005). After time served, the criminal is usually released to the general population however, general restrictions may still be imposed on them, including regular reporting to their probation officer, loss of voting privileges, imposition of fines, and for sexual offenders, inclusion in a sexual offender database (Chambliss, 2001). These are measures meant to prevent recidivism and to protect the public welfare. 2. Define what is meant by a “slippery slope,” and how it can lead to further problems in the administration of a criminal justice agency. The slippery slope refers to the argument that one small decision or step may cause a chain of events to follow, with the overall effect being much more significant than the original act (Rizzo and Whitman, 2003). This is very much like a first step taken down a slippery slope where the next step cannot often be stopped until the bottom pit is reached. Under this argument, making a particular decision would likely initiate something towards a slippery slope. Going down such slope would likely be unstoppable and may lead to other decisions made in the same fashion, eventually leading to a bigger and unavoidable, often undesirable end (Rizzo and Whitman, 2003). In the more practical applications, a minor action often causes a major impact through a series of interrelated logical relationships. Establishing this chain of events seems to allow some form of logical implication to be drawn from the relevant probabilities, which in the end lends, logical validity to the argument (Nemeth, 2011). However, this slippery slope argument has largely been discredited as a logical fallacy, something which has no logical sense and support. It represents arguments that, when taken together, do not necessarily reach the same logical end. Some incidents involving this argument are exemplified by Eugene Volokh in his example on gun registration and how it can lead to gun confiscation (Farnsworth, 2007). He also discusses that once gun owners have registered their firearms, the government would now know from whom they can confiscate the guns. Those who argue against gun control also declare that limiting assault weapons may eventually lead to the confiscation of weapons used by sportsmen in their recreational gun use (Farnsworth, 2007). This slippery slope argument has also been used in relation to the euthanasia or mercy killing debate. Those who oppose euthanasia declare that once euthanasia is legalized it would lead people into a slippery slope where the reason for carrying out the mercy killing may not even be based on the consent or request of a terminally ill patient (Huxtable, 2007). They argue that it may eventually be used as a remedy against limited health services and in order to reduce the cost of health care maintenance among the terminally ill, the chronically ill, and the elderly (Huxtable, 2007). This slippery slope argument can cause more problems in the administration of criminal justice because it can make the process of policy-making difficult and contentious (Lacey, et.al., 2003). Debate can be delayed on important legislation which can help secure public welfare. For example, the passage of gun control laws can be curtailed by continuous debate on the subject matter, especially where oppositionists use the slippery slope argument (Lacey, et.al., 2003). In the meantime, while debate is being carried out on the issue, issues on uncontrolled and unlicensed gun use may persist and grow. The slippery slope argument can also create stereotypes among those being covered by the criminal justice system. This argument often makes unfounded assumptions about situations and about people based on general knowledge, previously gathered data, and observed behavioral trends (Paterson, 2001). The knowledge, data, or trends may not always be based on empirical information, nevertheless, these trends may dictate the overall expectations. For example, immigrants are sometimes stereotyped as a detriment to the economy, as drug dealers, smugglers, gang members, and ghetto-dwellers. For which reason, the passage of immigration laws which seek to curtail their presence in the US may also eventually subject these immigrants to random stop/searches (Holbert and Rose, 2004). Those who oppose strict immigration laws may use the slippery slope argument to trace a possible chain of events which may start with the passage of the laws and the unlawful use of the provisions of the law (Paterson, 2001). In some ways they believe that the passage of strict immigration laws may lead to racial profiling – and this is another slippery slope which may cause racial discrimination (Holbert and Rose, 2004). The issue with the slippery slope argument is founded on the abuse of the implications of each event in a series of events. In the criminal justice system, act A does not necessarily lead to B, then B to C, and so on. Although some premises and conclusions may be valid, the contingencies are often not considered or factually established before relevant and valid conclusions are drawn. 3. Discuss the “personal loyalty syndrome,” and how it can be problematic in the criminal justice workplace. The personal loyalty syndrome is seen when certain individuals involved in the criminal justice workplace display excessive loyalty to their superiors (Pollock, 2011). This may not necessarily be ‘bad,’ however, sometimes, superiors are not qualified entitlement to such loyalty. Moreover, loyalty may also violate the constitution or other laws, including public welfare (Pollock, 2011). This personal loyalty is not necessarily indicated in the standard practices or rules in the office or criminal justice workplace. However, criminal justice practitioners are unknowingly often instructed that issues which relate to loyalty in the workplace are very important, and that an individual would not be able to blend in well in the workplace if he has no personal loyalty to his superiors (Sharma and Sharma, 1998). In effect, employees are often reminded that the trajectory of their career is founded on the amount of personal loyalty they display, regardless of the numerous contradictions which may be seen in its applications. This can be a problematic issue in the criminal justice workplace. Souryal (2011) demonstrates a situation demonstrating the issues which can be encountered when personal loyalty is often observed in the criminal justice workplace. He discusses that in 1997, Wayne Gamer, a commissioner of a corrections facility in Georgia authorized the massive beatings of inmates at the Hays State Prison (Souryal, 2011). The commissioner also watched the beatings which were carried out while the inmates were handcuffed. When the officers were asked why they participated in the beatings, they said that they believed that it was ‘okay’ to do it (Souryal, 2011). Moreover, Ray McWhorter, one of the prison administrators also attempted to cover up the incident, and even denied that the event ever took place. In another situation, Souryal (2011) also discusses the case where Miami mayor Joe Carollo fired City Manager Donald Warshaw due to issues relating to chief of police William O’Brien. Apparently, a raid by the INS was carried out on the home of Elian Gonzalez’s relatives and O’Brien did not inform the mayor of the raid (Souryal, 2011). The mayor believed that he should have been informed of the raid and ordered the city manager to fire the chief of police for his omission. The city manager refused and the mayor ordered his suspension. Shortly thereafter, the chief of police resigned, expressing that he refused to work under a divisive and destructive mayor (Souryal, 2011). The city manager also justified his decision not to fire O’Brien because the raid was a police, not a political matter. The two cases demonstrate how personal loyalty to superiors can impact significantly to the criminal justice workplace. In one case, the result was a blind obedience on the part of the prison officers indiscriminately carrying out the beatings on the prisoners (Souryal, 2011). On the other hand, refusing to protect personal loyalty enabled the leaders and individuals concerned to make the better decision for the protection of public welfare. The situation above illustrates the role of moral fortitude in situations involving personal loyalty. In both cases, it is also apparent to note that public welfare is often vulnerable when unprotected by individuals concerned (Souryal, 2011). It was the lack of personal loyalty on the part of O’Brien which made the raid possible, but for the inmates, it was the abandonment of discernment and professional judgment by the prison guards which allowed the beating of the inmates. There is often an implied hierarchical order in the criminal justice system, and most everyone involved in the system is often expected to follow and respect such system (Souryal, 2011). In the case demonstrated above, the lack of cooperation on the part of the chief of police was considered a lack of loyalty to his superior—the mayor of Miami. For Chief O’Brien, his concerns were on complying with the requirements of the raid, which was primarily on keeping the raid confidential. His actions, in the process, were geared towards the achievement of the common good and the protection of public welfare (Souryal, 2011). Through his actions, he remained loyal to his oath as a police officer and his oath to the constitution and the laws of the land. When Warshaw did not fire O’Brien, he also demonstrated a lack of loyalty to his mayor, but a strong sense of loyalty to more superior mandates. In the situation involving the inmates however, there is a strong sense of personal loyalty, a blind, misplaced, and unquestionable loyalty to the superior officer. They believed that they were only following orders and believed that the orders they were given were the right orders (Souryal, 2011). They did not have any moral compass for their actions, and their personal loyalty to their superior negated any semblance of morality or professionalism on the actions ordered. In such case, personal loyalty was damaging to the criminal justice workplace because the laws were virtually ignored in favor of personal loyalty (Sharma and Sharma, 1998). On the other hand, in the Miami case, the laws and the public welfare were protected. Although no personal loyalty was credited to the mayor, a greater sense of loyalty to the legal institutions was secured; moreover, the primary goals of the legal authorities were accomplished. 4. Explain why the passage of much of the federal affirmative action legislation has been considered the criminal justice administrator’s “worst nightmare.” The affirmative action legislation is the equal opportunity employment remedy which federal officers are required to implement. These laws are meant to prevent discrimination against employees seeking employment (Anderson, 2002). Affirmative action includes outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, as well as employee support policies. For the criminal justice administrators, the passage of federal affirmative action legislation can be considered their worst nightmare because although preferential policies provided some form of justice for those favored, they also seem to perpetuate reverse discrimination. Nevertheless, they seem to provide social good, without necessarily causing violence to justice. Such affirmative action also seems to make up for past wrongs. However, preferential hiring as a means of making up for past wrongs seems to be a vicious and thoughtless form of compensation (Beauchamp, 1998). It benefits individuals who were not harmed significantly by past wrongs while it then burdens individuals who are not in any way responsible for past wrongs. It actually does not secure justice, but it secures preferential treatment. And such preferential treatment violates the rights of applicants to be allocated equal and fair consideration (Thomson, 1973). It also violates the rights of those who are most competent to gain access to an open post (Goldman, 1976). It also causes hardships for criminal justice administrators because affirmative action legislation eliminates the rewards system for employees and potential employees based on character, talents, as well as ability (Simon, 1979). This affirmative action also reduces the impact of merit as well as conduct to demographic and racial considerations (Eastland and Bennett, 1979). Criminal justice administrators were very much in a major dilemma about the reverse discrimination involved in the application of affirmative action legislation. As employers, and sometimes schools, indicate their preference for women or for African Americans, they seem to be committing the same prejudice actively practiced during the Jim Crow years (Boylan, 2002). To make numerical determinations based on race is not beneficial for implementers seeking moral equality because making numerical quantifications founded on race is as good as negating the end goal through the means (Boylan, 2002). The processes in counting race will not establish a viable and fruitful end where race would not matter (Eastland, 1996). In effect, using race to establish a world where race would not anymore be a determinant is tantamount to supporting Supreme Court Justice Blackmun’s arguments. According to Blackmun, the legality of racial considerations should be measured by how fast the use would propel the people towards a time or place where race would not any more matter (Eastland, 1996). Affirmative action legislation created a nightmare for criminal justice administrators because it created a dilemma for administrators in terms of implementing non-discriminatory principles in establishing employment (Goldman, 1979). Under the affirmative action legislation, the provisions for hiring are not based on the most competent or on equal opportunity provisions. In instances where conflicts on equality and racial considerations are apparent, racial considerations seem to have a greater weight, even where other more objective elements are apparent (Goldman, 1979). In any case, if there are more important goals which equalize opportunities in a system filled with inequality, justice seems to be based on more subjective considerations. Moreover, these considerations make the task of ensuring equal opportunity clauses difficult. Criminal justice administrators experienced much difficulty in securing affirmative action legislation because they came in conflict with the basic mandates of the constitution, especially those which referred to equal protection laws (Cohen and Sterba, 2003. Moreover, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 preceded the affirmative action legislation. This law had a more widespread acceptance and was more readily supported by positive moral and ethical mandates. Preferential hiring under the affirmative action legislation has created difficulties for administrators in securing equal opportunity provisions (Cohen and Sterba, 2003). Favoring certain individuals based on gender and racial considerations is discrimination because the choice is based on subjective not objective qualities, and is still founded on racial and gender elements (Cohen and Sterba, 2003). For administrators, although they may indeed be striking a better tone for women and African Americans who experienced much discrimination in the past, they are still no better than their forebears who made choices based on subjective considerations like gender and race. References Anderson, E. (2002). Integration, affirmative action, and strict scrutiny. New York University Law Review, vol. 77: pp. 1195–1271. Arnold, S. (1998). Affirmative action and the demands of justice. Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 15: pp. 133–175. Beauchamp, T. (1998). In defense of affirmative action. Journal of Ethics, vol. 2: pp. 143–158. Boylan, M. (2002). Affirmative action: strategies for the future. Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 33: pp. 117–130. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997). What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system?. Retrieved from http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/cjsc/glance/BJSflowchart.pdf Chambliss, W. (2001). Power, politics, and crime. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Cohen, C. and Sterba, J. (2003). Affirmative action and racial preferences: a debate. New York: Oxford University Press. Eastland, T. (1996). Ending affirmative action: the case for colorblind justice. New York: Basic Books. Friedman, L. (1993). Crime and punishment in American history. New York: Basic Books. Farnsworth, W. (2007). The legal analyst: a toolkit for thinking about the law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fuller, J. (2005). Criminal justice: mainstream and crosscurrents. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Goldman, A. (1979). Justice and reverse discrimination. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Hanes, R. and Hanes, S. (2005). Crime and punishment in America. Michigan: Thomas Gale Pub. Holbert, S. and Rose, L. (2004). Color of guilt and innocence. New York: Page Marque Press. Huxtable, R. (2007). Euthanasia, ethics and the law. New York: Routledge. Lacey, N., Wells, C., and Quick, O. (2003). Reconstructing criminal law:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nemeth, C. (2011). Criminal law. Michigan: CRC Press. Paterson, C. (2001). The contribution of natural law theory to moral and legal debate concerning suicide, assisted suicide, and voluntary euthanasia. California: Viewforth. Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. California: Cengage Learning. Rizzo, M. and Whitman, G. 2003. The camel's nose is in the tent: rules, theories and slippery slopes. UCLA Law Review, vol. 51 (2): pp. 539–592. Sharma, U. and Sharma, S. (1998). Western political thought. New York: Atlantic Publishers & Dist. Simon, R. (1979). Individual rights and ‘benign’ discrimination. Ethics, vol. 90: pp. 88–97. Souryal, S. (2011). Ethics in criminal justice: in search of the truth. New York: Elsevier. Thomson, J. (1973). Preferential hiring. Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 2: pp. 364–384 Walker, S. (1980). Popular justice: a history of American criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More