Administration of justice - Essay Example

? Administration of Justice Quiz Affiliation with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact Administration of Justice Introduction - Case Scenario: This scenario deals with a case of arrest under securities fraud, of Michael Pickens, son of the multi-billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens, arguably one of the richest persons in the United States of America. Michael pleaded guilty and was arrested and charged with securities fraud, having masterminded a major scam to induce investors, through trickery and deception, to buy shares in stocks, such that when their markets turned bullish, the perpetrators of this fraud could sell the stocks for lucrative profits. As a matter of fact, the parties involved in this bogus e-mail fraud had netted $400,000 as profits. However, coming back to Michael Pickens, he has a long history of substance abuse and drug addiction, and has already spent more nearly one and half years, at drug treatment and rehabilitation. The critical question that now arises is what kind of penal, deterrent and/or rehab sentence should be served by the criminal justice delivery system, in the case of Michael Pickens and why should such recourse be chosen. Besides, the goals and objectives of the sentence would also need to be discussed in terms of its potential effectiveness and ability to reform this trickster through integration into mainstream society. 1. Rehabilitation Perspective: According to this view the justice system is a large institution that provides correctional faculties to criminals and law breakers. From this perspective, criminals are not merely seen as scheming, manipulative individuals who mastermind their crimes out of greed, or vendetta. Instead, they are viewed as victims of their circumstances or as being deceived by the society. Thus, in this context, rather than highlighting their crimes and its various ramifications and implications, rehabilitation specialists focus on criminals as individuals, their needs and aspirations, as well as factors that what prompted them to commit the crimes. Thus, they give consideration to what could be possibly done to help rehabilitate such individuals back into the mainstream society. “Rather than focus on the victim, as the crime control people do, rehabilitation people focus on the criminal: their needs, how can they be helped, and what treatment suits their individual behavior problems” (Worrall, n.d). Perhaps the rehabilitation treatment model, far from being punitive or disciplinary, seeks to enforce effective measures into the justice delivery system, which could aid in diagnosing, treating, monitoring and following up of cases so as to achieve remedial or curative measures for the ‘patient’. The policies of correcting and rehabilitating substance abusers underpin the activities of The California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF). This facility, with its treatment capacity of 1,428, is presently the largest-in-prison TC in the state besides being one of the biggest in any US prison. 2. Crime control Perspective: To a large extent, the crime control perspective is an anti thesis of the rehabilitative viewpoint, in that it advocates stronger, stricter and more stringent laws and measures against criminals and lawbreakers, actual and potential. This theory adopts a viewpoint that by strengthening and reinforcing policing techniques, like putting more law enforcement personnel on the job, crime rates could be effectively reduced and also better controls and monitoring could be achieved. Besides, better policing infrastructure could help reduce the incidence and regularity of crimes, especially in heavy crime zones. Coming to the current policies, it is seen that more than 30 States in this country have implemented laws, which require a compulsory sentence of a specific period for particular kinds of crimes. Most are directed at drug offenders or those people charged with violent crimes and forbid them from being placed on probation as a sole sentence; as a penal and punitive measure, combined with deterrence, they are also required to serve at least some time in prison. 3. Restorative Justice Perspective: The main principles of the restorative justice perspective are, to a certain extent, akin with that of the rehabilitation viewpoint. It believes that the true purpose of the criminal justice system is to promote a peaceful and just society; and, therefore, the justice system should aim for peacemaking and not punishment nor retributive justice. According to this perspective, punitive action against apparent wrong doers serves only to encourage crimes and does not dissuade crimes from being committed. In order to discourage crime, it is necessary to set up a harmonious social unit that could afford an opportunity to the criminal or wrong doer to voice his opinions, to forgive his crimes and provide avenues by which s/he could be brought back into society. The concept of reintegrative shaming is part of this perspective, wherein the perpetrator experiences guilt and shame over such actions and vows not to repeat his acts and misdeeds again. This is because informal social controls may have a greater influence than legal or official ones; it may not be surprising that the fear of personal shame can have a greater deterrent effect on a wrong doer than the fear of legal sanctions or punishment. It may also be applied to produce precise deterrence. Offenders could meet victims so that the former can experience shame and distress over their actions and misdeeds and thus genuinely repent their sins. 4. Non intervention Perspective: The noninterventionists’ perspective believes that whenever possible, justice organizations and institutions should limit their involvement with criminal defendants. They believe that labeling is a major factor that could provide lifelong stigma to a wrong doer however mild or minor the offence may be. Once a labeling process is completed on an individual, it becomes difficult for that person to be accepted or integrated into the mainstream society, perhaps even after the jail term has been completely served. Besides, it is believed that first time offenders who commit minor crimes should, instead of being placed in prisons or reform schools, be put into informal, community based treatment program which is also known as pretrial changes. Non-interventionists have successfully managed to change laws that could allow juveniles to be placed in adult jail settings. During 1989, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 were modified to enforce laws that directed states to remove all juveniles from adult jails and lockups. According to federal guidelines, all juveniles in state custody must be estranged from adult offenders, failing which the state could lose access to federal juvenile justice funds. 5. Due Process Perspective: The Due Process perspective considers that the most significant aspect of criminal justice system is that it should provide transparent, fair and equitable treatment to those accused of crime. This could be in terms of defendants having access to unbiased hearings, fair juries, skilled legal counsel, unprejudiced treatment, and rational sanctions. The use of discretion within the justice system should be strictly monitored to ensure that no one becomes a victim of any kind of, color, gender, racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. According to this viewpoint, while there could be controversial aspects regarding what the correct aims and objectives of the criminal justice system should be, there is no doubt, or duality of views, on the truth that the justice delivery system must function in a fair, unbiased and non arbitrary manner and would need to consider the best interests of the defendant until s/he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The policy aspect of the due process perspective could be seen in terms of the exclusionary rule, which is formally defined as the requirement that evidence obtained in violation of the constitution  during  an illegal  search or other process,  cannot be used in a criminal trial and  the contaminated evidence cannot be mentioned or referred to. The exclusionary rule, is  not a constitutional requirement, but rather a rule created by the Supreme Court in its review of relevant cases and it is not found anywhere in the constitution. 6. Equal Justice Model Perspective: The equal justice model perspective is somewhat similar to the above-mentioned due process system, since both these perspective concern with the carriage (or miscarriage) of justice delivery system. But, this viewpoint goes a bit further and advocates that the core of the justice perspective is that all people should receive the same treatment under prevailing law. Thus, according to it any attempt to differentiate between criminal suspects or offenders will create a sense of being prejudiced or unfair against, which can interfere with social reconditioning and alignment back to society through reformist means. It is, indeed, disconcerting when two people commit the same crime, yet receive different sentences or retribution. The resulting anger and a sense of unfairness will increase the likelihood of recidivism which would do little to serve the greater interests of reducing crime levels in society. On the country, it would provide fuel for more incidence and intensity of crimes. Police discretion has become a major factor in crime fighting. One method of managing discretion is to make police officers answerable to groups of fellow officers who preside over administrative review boards to assess their actions in case of complaint, unusual actions, etc. The pro type is New York City’s Firearm Discharge Review Board which was established to investigate and adjudicate all police firearm discharge cases. An advocate of a Rehabilitation Perspective would consider active rehab program for Michael since he would not really be in favor of a prison term or some other kind of retributive justice. Thus, the sentence would be in terms of Michael Pickens having to serve a minimum of three years in a reform school or other kinds of rehab centers. They would be concerned whether his drug habits have precipitated a crime of this genre, and it would, thus, be necessary or even imperative for rehab to be commenced immediately. After a period of three years, a review would be done to assess whether he is fit for discharge, or needs to spend more time in the rehab center until he is considered fit for being integrated into the mainstream society. Under a Crime Control Perspective, it would become necessary for Michael Pickens to serve a jail term, since he has been suspected and convicted for a criminal offence. Besides, his drug background does not help in gaining the sympathy of judges. Under this viewpoint, he would have to serve a minimum of two years in prison, along with fine and penalties of an amount not less than the profits that have accrued to him through the email scam. The Restorative Justice Perspective would take his father as a model, so as to cause shame on the defendant, Michael Pickens, in order to allow him the opportunity to feel guilty for his act and to seek atonement. This perspective does not advocate penal or punitive action or sentence, but would need to offer scope for the defendant to atone for his crimes through integrative shaming, and by comparing him with his illustrious father, this could be achieved in large measure. Under non intervention perspective, the question of decriminalization, decarceration and diversion of the criminal acts could be considered. Since the question of labeling and consequent stigma also results to the convict, it would consider a course of action that would be more in line with economic restitution of losses suffered due to acts of the accused, Michael Pickens, Since his father, T. Boone Pickens, has offered to pay off the full restitution to clear the family name and bail his son out of trouble, under this perspective, nothing more could be envisaged. Coming to the due process perspective model, it advocates that a decision or sentence could be passed only after giving the accused a fair trial. Since it advocates that the justice delivery system needs to ensure transparent, fair and equitable treatment to those accused of crime, the accused may be convicted only after a full and fair trial. Under this system, it would must be seen whether this is his first offence or multiple one, and also how much was his involvement in the fraud case. It is very important and imperative that under this perspective, Michael Pickens’s punishment needs to wholly commensurate with his complicity and involvement in the crime. Since it is mainly an economic offence, he could possibly get away with a light sentence, perhaps a couple of years in reform prison and a fine. This is because it is necessary that proper deterrence should be enforced as well as consideration needs to be placed on the settings of the case and his complicity. The fact that he is a drug addict and is undergoing rehab for substance abuse should also be taken into consideration. If he did not have the drug habit, he may perhaps, not commit this crime. Finally, coming to the Equal Justice Model Perspective, the involvement of his accomplices and all others in this securities fraud crime would need to be taken into account, and also a just and equitable punishment and deterrent sentence taking all aspects into consideration need to be passed. In this case study, the perpetrator, Michael Pickens is not seen as an ordinary criminal but as a person who has a serious problem of drug addiction. Thus, he does not fit into the classical mould of a ruthless, determined and calculative criminal, who perpetrate the crime with the intend of wreaking vengeance on the world, or a greedy lunatic want to make a lot of money through illegal and illegitimate means. Besides, in his case, the precipitative factor that led him to involve himself in this crime may perhaps not have been the money, but the thrill and exhilaration in doing something which is prohibited under law. Under such circumstances, the best perspective that could be applied would be that of reformist or rehabilitative, since he is quite capable of becoming an upright and honest citizen in future. How would an advocate of each of these perspectives sentence Michael Pickens, what sanction would they choose, and why would they choose it? What would they be concerned about, and what would their goal be in the sentence. The sanction that would be most appropriate in the case of Michael Pickens would be that of rehabilitation since it is quite possible that his crimes would have been committed since he is not a person of sound mind and is a compulsive drug addict. So it is imperative that his drug problem be solved first before any kind of punitive measure be taken against him. What is need is reform and not penalty, since even with punitive measures it is quite possible that he could be a recidivist case later on. They need to be concened about his drug habits and how these could be resolved at the earliest and give him an opportunity to reform himself and come out a reformed and drug free person. Their goal and objective in this case would be to take cognizance of his drug habit, offer him treatment and rehabilitation programs and oversee his progress in this count. Which of the perspectives best represents your own personal values and why? What problems do you have with the other perspectives and whydo they clash with your personal vision of justice? In other words,give the reasons you favor one view and the problems you have with the others This Rehabilitation Perspective, to my mind, is the best one and represents my own personal values, since I feel that in most instances, criminals are not born but are made, due to social inequity and injustices. In certain cases, as occurred in the instant case, this may happen due to broken families,drug addition or alcoholism. The basic is that the perpetrator is not a person with a criminal mind but he happens to commit a crime due to the influence of some extremes elements. Since the elements in the society which is the cause of all the crimes, it becomes the responsibility of the society to offer constructive and positive solutions that could reform criminal minds and bring them into the mainstream of social moorings and settings. Punishing criminals only serve to exacerbate the problem and make individuals more bitter and hateful of society. It encourages recidivism and creates fractured and broken families, thus paving the way for more criminal action possibilities from the next generations too. “Society must help them in order to compensate for their social problems. It is our duty to give them support and care. Rehabilitation advocates do not mistrust the government or believe that it is helpless to control crime. Instead they argue that government programs can help reduce crime on both a macro- and micro-level” (Worrall, n.d). I am not of saying that crimes should not be solved and criminals not brought to book; but may view is that retributive and vindictive punishment cannot be seen as the means to address crime since it does nothing to solve the problem but only aggravates it to a great deal. The other perspectives like crime control, restorative, non intervention, due process or equal justice also do not serve the real purpose as they do not pay heed to the core issues in criminal matters. It is important that in crime, we do not just look subjectively at the crime, per se but also the personality and mind frame of its perpetrators. Basic aspects like what caused them to commit the crime, what was their mental state at the time of commission, participation; complicity, individual involvement and actual commission are major factors as is motive and its modus operandi. In this case study, the main aspects do not concern how the law is applied to solve the case rather, it is necessary to take a holistic view of the entire scenario, and the mens rea and actus rea of the main players. The rehabilitation perspective is the best, especially for first time offenders, since it gives them a good opportunity to learn from their mistakes and desist from committing the same crimes over. Punishment, due process and disciplinary actions as advocated by others would only exacerbate the negative feelings and would not really solve the real problem, and could only aggravate it beyond cure. Here the motive was no doubt financial gains, but this could not be fully applied in the case of Michael Pickens who perhaps did it more for the thrill value than anything else. Thus, the involvement in his case could be seen in the perspective of the need to reform him rather than to punish and penalize him. Moreover, when considering the economic losses suffered by investors, another significant aspect is that his father has since restituted the total losses from his own funds. Thus, there are not many complaints or grouses left, except perhaps the drug factor, which needs to be looked into seriously. It is for this reasons that the reform or rehab program is being recommended for Michael Pickens. Conclusions: While the recommendations and conjecture are at best considered from the legal argumentative point of view, it is necessary to consider the issue from a totally professional point of view, especially since the defendant has a drug problem. This could indeed be a serious matter that seeks immediate and effective action, since drug problems give rise to major mental and physical conditions, which may have long term consequences. Thus, it is important that drug rehab be enforced on this defendant that could not only offer permanent solutions but also dissuade him from committing crimes in the future. Reference List Worrall, JL. (n.d) Crime Control in America, what works: 2nd edition Rehabilitation Perspective: l chapter 10-11: The History of Treatment and Rehabilitation: The rehabilitation Model Read More