Criminal Justice Authority - Essay Example

? Criminal Justice ity al Affiliation: Criminal Justice ity Although the criminal justicesystem has been authorized to transact business on behalf of the state, there are excesses in the system that need to be checked. The criminal justice system uses coercion if it is not controlled in its mission to deliver justice to the people (Terrill, 2009). This excess can only be checked by an oversight committee which reports to the authorities or conducts investigations. Most of the police officers do not work according to the standards of their work hence the need of the civilian oversight committee to provide accountability and transparency in the system (Bruce, 2002). Individuals ought to obey the law and ensure that they do not go against the rules set by the state. Criminal justice authority needs to conform to the provisions of the law before administering the law (Government of Alberta, 2011). Impunity in the practice of duties should be shunned for it causes mistrust amongst the citizens. There is a need to have a procedure of carrying out activities which offer protection to the citizens from the criminals. The civilian oversight committees play a very pertinent role of balancing the powers of the criminal justice authority (Terrill, 2009). Despite the fact that the criminals are evil doers, they need to be protected from the coercion of rough law enforcers. Discretionary authority can create opportunistic moments whereby coercion of criminals or suspects is upheld (Bruce, 2002). Introduction Criminal justice system practices act of upholding social control, mitigating and deterring crime. Criminal justice is used in sanctioning the individuals who go against the laws set by with rehabilitation efforts and criminal penalties. People accused of crime have protections against abuse of prosecution and investigatory powers. Law is a system of rules enforced through a number of societal institutions (Bruce, 2002). The law serves the purpose of maintaining order in the society by the provision of set of rules which govern the conduct. There is criminal and civil law used in the practice of law in society. Civil laws are the rules and regulations which control grievances and transactions between the citizens in a society while criminal law concerns dangerous actions to the society (Jernigan, 2007). In criminal law, prosecution is pursued by the state rather than individuals. Criminal law provides definitions for crime and possible prescriptions for sentences for the committing of the crime in question (Government of Alberta, 2011). Discretionary authority personnel Discretionary authority entails that there is open authority practice over the criminals. If this authority is not checked, it has its excesses because many people become victims of torture and harassing from the law enforcers. There is a need to have civilians who are non-aligned to forces as a check to the measures in the manner justice is delivered to the victims or criminals. It is not in orders to delivery justice by bending the law because it would spoil the image of the law (Bruce, 2002). The civilian oversight committee helps in affirming confidence to the police departments to the public. They are the check elements who represent the citizens in ensuring that the police follow the law in performing their duties (Terrill, 2009). Civilian oversight committee Civilian oversight committees play a great role in ensuring that the police are fully investigated in case they commit crime sin prevention of the same crime. The term oversight means an ongoing practice whereby each police is held accountable for his or her actions. The committee focuses on achieving accountability by division of power within the law enforcing organization for the purposes of close monitoring. This committee brings forth a democratic society which responds to the concerns of the majority (Government of Alberta, 2011). There is accountability between the oversight bodies and policing departments. The measures the police take in prevention of crime needs to be checked because if the police commit wrongdoings, they shield their colleagues from facing the law. This cannot happen in the case where there is the civilian oversight committee where the policemen are answerable in case of any misconduct (Bruce, 2002). This promotes the trust of the law by the citizens as well as, making the citizens have trust in the police forces rather than contempt. The reason why the civilian oversight committees are put in place is that they help the public to report the offenders to the police without any fear that their case will be dismissed. Even if the state makes sure that there is a body that investigates the police, the public would still feel that there is inadequate investigation done. This would be blamed for the impartiality of the police officers’ conduct investigations amongst their peers (Terrill, 2009). So as to ensure that authoritative power is not abused in the acts of discretion, the civilian oversight committee performs various duties, which ensure that, the civilian committees make a positive contribution to policing (Jernigan, 2007). Civilian oversight committee ensures that the policemen observe high standards of conducts during their work. They ought to observe the maintenance of human rights even if they individual is a criminal. There are various benefits of the civilian oversight committee which are: they investigate the alleged officer’s misconduct and with firmness and fairness (Bruce, 2002). Civilian oversight committee helps in reduction of public concerns about cover ups in high profile cases. There is increased comprehension of the work of the police force and why they use force in solving issues. The public is reassured of efficiency in the police force because there is the integration of the police forces and the citizens through the civilian oversight committees (Government of Alberta, 2011). Police leaders who have been informed of the success of the committees wants them strengthened so as to increase the value of community policing. Integration of the citizens and the police force boosts the results of the police in the process of enforcing and maintaining the law (Terrill, 2009). For the civilian oversight committee to perform its duties effectively, it needs to be impartial in its decisions so that it does not try to win the favor of the police neither that of the public. If the publics on the wrong, they should face the law as well as the policemen (Sorensen and IFIP Working Group, 2005). Compromising the situations aggravates the things whereby the civilian oversight committee becomes bait for the police leaders if they want to play gimmicks on the public. Incentives can be used to woo the committees but, they need to be discouraged a great deal by the leaders for they mislead the committees into acting as the police force wishes hence covering their crimes (Bruce, 2002). The committees need to be composed of members who are not aligned to the systems of governance or police force. The committee acts needs to be solved in apolitical manner so; they do to need to act as inciters to the public for they are supposed to be neutral. Even if they have their observations, they need to use wits to solve conflict amicably (Jernigan, 2007). The integration between the police and the civilians results in very positive results whereby the civilian oversight committee represents the interests of the citizens. The committees do not carry to investigations alone but with the help of the police officers whose investigations are checked by the committees. The committees establish that the investigations are done appropriately without impunity (Terrill, 2009). Many civilian oversight committees have been resisted by the law enforcing agencies because they act as a unit of measure for the agencies. The police officers have a feeling that the civilian committees will be biased and attack the police force. This results into resisting the civilian committees. Some police leaders perceive the idea of civilian committees as a source of interference with their work in disciplining the criminals. In cases where police force accepted the civilian committees, there is a lot of suspicion because they doubt their work and involvement with the law enforcers. Information cannot be shared in such a tensed environment because cynicism is prevalent due to suspicions between the two factions (Bruce, 2002). There are other police officers or law enforcing agencies which appreciate the civilian committees because they recognize their work. Suspicions are not given an opportunity to distract the running of the civilian oversight committees because they are helpful to the police leaders (Jernigan, 2007). The police authority is strengthened by the civilian committees because they check the manner in which police perform their duties. Standard measures are put in place so that police do not get investigated by the civilian committees. Motivation in policemen, in this case, is fear because they fear being reported or investigated which can case interdiction or any other disciplinary action from the government side or the police department (Sorensen and IFIP Working Group, 2005). Civilian oversight committee has been implemented in the face of resistance from some police leaders who are in cahoots with criminals to execute evil. They do not want their treacherous ways from being unearthed buy the civilian oversight committees (Bruce, 2002). Conclusion The discretionary authority needs to be respected for it is more associated with the office of the procurator rather than the individual procurator. There are published guidelines which are supposed to be used in charging offenders. There is an influence caused by the audit of the procurators work which determines the exercising of the individual’s discretionary authority (Terrill, 2009). This authority needs to be checked by the civilian committees so that it is not biased hence oppressing the individual in question. Procurators are supposed to be impartial in determining the course a case takes (Terrill, 2009). Personal bias should be discouraged in practicing the investigation because it derails justice from taking its course (Bruce, 2002). If there is bias, autocracy can rein over democracy for the committees and the police service can be manipulated by the governments and political parties. Reference List Bruce, D. (2002). Civilian Review: A proposed role for civilian oversight committees in promoting accountability in municipal police departments. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011 from http://www.csvr.org.za/wits/papers/papbruc7.htm Government of Alberta. (2011). Civilian Oversight of Policing. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011 from http://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/law_enforcement_oversight/policing_oversight_complaints/civilian_oversight/Pages/default.aspx Jernigan, C. (2007). County and Municipal Government in North Carolina: Law Enforcement. Retrieved on 1st December, 2011 from http://sogpubs.unc.edu/cmg/cmg29.pdf Sorensen, C. and IFIP Working Group. (2005). Designing ubiquitous information environments: sociotechnical issues and challenges: IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 international working conference, August 1-3, 2005, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Terrill, R. (2009). World Criminal Justice Systems: A Survey. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Read More