U.S. criminal justice - Essay Example

Inserts His/her Inserts Inserts Grade (10, 02, U.S. Criminal Justice Goals of Criminal Justice System and of Individuals: A Comparison The objectives of the criminal justice system ensure safety of the society through justice for individual, personal liberty and the right to due process. All these objectives make it absolutely certain that rule of law prevail and justice is served. The 17,500 law enforcement agencies of the country are trying very hard to achieve these objectives (Hudzik, J. 2010).The extent to which the United States criminal justice system has achieved these goals. It has been successful in securing the rights of the individuals. United States of America is considered a just society all over the world because of its justice system however there are many improvements that can be made to better beef up the process of criminal justice. But at the same it is important to understand what individuals demand from the criminal justice system and how these demands are fulfilled. Goals of individuals include social justice, equality before law, protection of society and freedom for fear. All these goals safeguard the interest of the individuals. The extent to which these goals are covered by U.S. criminal justice system is difficult to say because some of these goals are of conflicting nature but at the same time we cannot dismiss the criminal justice system of the country. United States criminal justice system is doing a very good job in allowing personal liberty and the right to due process. All these goals are being achieved and one can say this because all the procedures are followed and there are less loop holes in the system. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments secure personal rights and liberties, and protect citizens from unreasonable searches (Howard, J. 2009). There are still roam for injustices but United States criminal justice system is going in the right direction in fulfilling its goal. Prejudice is an element that cannot be ignored and that restrains the objectivity of the criminal justice system. This has been seen in the case of minorities because minorities do not get proportional representation in courts and that affects the criminal justice system (Santiago, C. 2011). This is another way in which the goal of individual justice is not fully achieved by the criminal justice system. The goal of human dignity is sometimes not fully achieved under the criminal justice system of the country. The reason being that maximum protection prison face mistreatment and also the criminals convicted of hideous crimes like child abuse or serial killing face treatment that is not fit for human (Sociology of Criminal Justice, 2010). Human dignity is important for even the cruelest of criminals but it is hard to attain this goal given that the emotions of guards and other prison officers also come into play. This is one grey area where attention is needed. There are both conflicts and similarities between the goals of the criminal justice system and the goals of the individual. The criminal justice system cares about individuals so that no one is wrongfully convicted. This is especially important to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to trail and all the rights of the individuals are safeguarded. Personal liberty is one of the goals of criminal justice system that conflicts with the goal of the individual for protection of society. Society may need protection more than ever in this age of terrorism. Getting warrants from the proper authorities might take long and that can allow the terrorists to come into action and as a result valuable lives are put to risk. The security risk in United States is so much that people protested on the trial of 9/11 attacks that were being held in Newburg (Livingston, B. 2010). This shows the conflict between goals of individual and goal of criminal justice. Justice for individual is another goal criminal justice system that clashes with the idea of social justice in some ways. When a murderer is let free because of insufficient evidence individual justice is serve but the society does not get justice. The same criminal is allowed to roam the streets like a free man. He may harm more people and this can endanger safety of the society. This is another conflict in goals of criminal justice system and individuals. It is understandable that sufficient evidence is a criterion that is necessary in order to make sure that only the criminal ends up in jail but this can affect social justice. With rise of terrorism criminal justice system has taken a new turn that is not in the interest of the people or the society. Arrests are now allowed without sufficient evidence and this is seriously endangering the rights of people especially immigrants and minorities. Recently after a mob bust 110 people were arrested and the attorney general called them “menaces to the nation” (Times Magazine, 2011). This treatment may help to further achieve goals of individual but at the same time it will take the criminal justice system away from its own goals. This is a recent trend in the criminal justice system that can be considered a failure of the system in achieving its own goal. People although need protection but ultimately they will be exposed to the oppression of the state if proper procedures are not followed and law enforcement agencies are given a free hand in detaining suspects. There are also similarities between the goals of the justice system and of the individuals. The goal of individuals for equality before the law is actually representative of the values that criminal justice system incorporates. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law no matter what and this principle both fulfills the society’s goal and that of criminal justice system. The goal of dignity as a human being is also similar to the individual goals of social justice. Human beings if treated with dignity will automatically raise the standards of social justice in the society. This is equal for criminals and normal citizens alike. These are the goals that are similar on both sides. Current Event The article is regarding the issue of gun control in United States of America and what are the political and social implications of gun control policy. The issue discussed in the article is that whether citizens should be allowed to hold weapons in self defense or whether weapons should be banned (Grunwald, M. 2011). Interesting statistics are given in the article for example less than 1 percent of all deaths by gun result by self defense. The criminal justice system allows the right of self defense and many citizens are now keeping weapons to protect themselves. It is widely debated whether such wide use of guns will help protect or endanger the society. Accidents and homicide cases can also rise as a result of people holding personal weapons (Grunwald, M. 2011). Laws in different States also vary on the issue of gun control. Some States allow citizens to use gun on their private property as a right to self defense. The criminal justice system is at risk here because it is not always very easy to comprehend issue of self defense. If it is left on citizens to evaluate the riskiness of the situation then it can cause troubles for the society and can also increase accidents. The United States criminal justice system is prone to such problems and the only way to control such accidents is control the use of gun by citizens. Function of Modern Police The functions of Police are to make the society peaceful for the residents and establish law and order in the society. The main job of the police is to see through that laws are being followed by all members of the society and to stop any transgression. The functions of modern police is however better defined and precise. These include apprehending of anyone who breaks the law and to ensure community well being by giving safer environment for everyone. The function of modern police is not to protect someone from harm (Greenhouse, L. 2005) but any violation of law is to be controlled by the police. It is vital to understand why police cannot protect someone from harm. This came up in ruling for a case in 2005 (Greenhouse, L.). Police cannot act without due process and if anyone is facing potential danger than it is for the police to decide about the severity of the danger. Modern police functions are restricted in many ways and many laws govern the role of police. All this is done in order to protect personal liberties. Police can only act if there is substantial proof against a person. The function of modern police is also to stop criminals from harming private life and property. Police is expected to act in the defense of the citizens. Its main job is to protect the residents of the society or the community. Hands of modern police are tied and they are given less authority simply to protect the rights of the citizens. Influence of Social Values and Expectations on the role of Police Police is symbol of safety for the residents of a community. Police officers operating in a community must abide by the social values that prevail in the community. For example there are tough neighborhoods where a small fight might be handled in a different way than in a safe neighborhood. Such distinctions arise because the role of police is perceived differently in different communities. The dynamics of every community is different and this is why the people have different expectations from police in different communities. It is important for the police to keep in mind the norms and culture of the society in order to perform their duties effectively (Roberg, Novak & Cordner, 2005). Police officers have to work in the society and they should understand how people in the community perceive threat, violence and criminal behavior. Without such understanding police cannot perform its duties. There are communities that have collectivist norms and in such communities’ police and citizen and work closely to establish law and order. Also the people define wrong doing in a different way. Police officers for example can easily complaint family of a teenager of his misconduct than arresting him. This may be enough for some communities but in other neighborhood tough action is required against all kinds of criminals including teenagers. The influence of values and expectations is great on the role of police in a community. Comparing Traditional Policing and Community Policing Community policing is based on philosophy of interaction with community in order to prevent criminal activities. People from the community help in identifying suspects and they play an active part in the controlling crime. The concept of community policing is very helpful in decreasing crime in the neighborhood. This concept became famous in 1980’s and since then it has been widely implemented (Bucqueroux, B. 2011). Traditional policing does not take help from people of the community and the responsibility of maintaining semblance and controlling crimes. Traditional policing involves authoritarian style of leadership and everyone has to follow a routine. It is considered the job of police to fight crime and officers patrol the area to check the neighborhood. The main difference between community policing and traditional policing is that community policing moves to stop crime before it occurs and traditional policing involves a reactive approach towards crime (Cops, 2008). The strategy of traditional policing is to patrol the area in a systematic manner and rapid response to emergencies. The utilization of police resources is central to the idea of traditional policing. Community policing involves using the public resource in order to fight crime. Patrolling is still done but the idea is to talk to people and find from them where the problem areas are. In this way police is better able to identify the issues in the community and solve them. Community policing also calls for public to take action in certain cases of emergencies (Cops, 2008). This means people respond in certain emergencies before police arrives. The idea is to involve the society as much as possible in detection and prevention of crime. It doesn’t mean that community policing gives normal people authority to act on their behalf but rather input in taken from them regularly so that better security can be provided to the society. The relationship between people and police is not considered to be important in traditional policing. Efficiency is important in traditional policing. They are interested in taking care of incidents and not stopping it. Police presence is the only way through which traditional policing can stop and deter crimes. Quickly fixing the problem is the main aim of traditional police. By solving problems immediately they tend to attain efficiency. Traditional police have a fix set of strategies and they try to follow them strictly. There are fix procedures everyone abides by them. Community policing is all about taking initiatives. The strategies are of a wide range and involvement of community people is considered important. The strategy is to uproot the problem by interacting with the community and not providing quick fixes. He focus is to eliminate the root cause of the problem and this is achieved by involving community in the process of crime control. Because there are many resources through which information is available community policing offers great advantage over traditional policing. This strategy works because crimes are targeted before they happen. Works Cited Page Bucqueroux, B. Community Criminal Justice: What Community Policing Teaches. Policing.com, 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. COPS. Community Policing, 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. Greenhouse, L. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone. The New York Times, 2005. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2> Grunwald, M. Tucson Tragedy: Is Gun Control a Dead Issue? Time Magazine, 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171, 2042357, 00.html> Howard, J. Criminal Justice Process Explained. Edu Book, 2009. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.edubook.com/criminal-justice-process-explained/14020/> Hudzik, J. Comprehensive Criminal Justice Planning, 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/proceedings/1-27/~/media/publications/proceedings/24/hudzik.ashx> Livingston, B. Newburgh Mayor Nick Valentine Wants To Host Terrorism Trial. Personal Liberty Digest, 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.personalliberty.com/news/newburgh-mayor-nick-valentine-wants-to-host-terrorism-trial-19598912/> Page Rank Studio.  Criminal Justice, Ethics of: Aspects of Human Dignity. Sociology of Criminal Justice, 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2010/10/criminal-justice-ethics-of-aspects-of-human-dignity/> Roberg, Novak & Cordner. Police and society. Roxbury Publishing Company, 2005. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://roxbury.net/booksites/ps3/ps3outlines.html> Santiago, C. Criminal Justice System. Jrank.org, 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.jrank.org/cultures/pages/3761/Criminal-Justice-System.html> Time Magazine. Quotes of the Day, 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. < http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,2043697,00.html> Read More