Risk Management Is Not a Good Objective for the Criminal Justice Process - Essay Example

? Discuss why Risk Management is not a Good Objective for the Criminal Justice Process Risk management is a widely discussed issuein the criminal justice system. There is always heightened fear in the general public when the media and the political spheres show interest in a crime. Most of the interest shown by these parties and others cannot be substantiated. Risk here refers to the possibility of exposure to harm. The purpose of managing risk is to assess and analyze the risk exposure and finding the best fitting strategy for its management (Murphy, and Whitty, 2007). Risk in the criminal justice system is widely associated with young offenders. There are those who have a lot of risk factors such as truancy, the low achievers and those from a single-parent family. The children who have less parental supervision are also vulnerable to anti-social behavior that may lead to criminal activities. In fact, crime statistics chow that the youth are more susceptible to involvement in criminal activities than adults. This correlation between crime rate and age does not only apply to the offenders, but also to the victims of those criminal activities (Kemshall, 2003). The process of assessing and managing risk has, therefore, become a prime issue for discussion in every criminal justice system. In the assessment of risk in a criminal offence, the character of the individual is evaluated to determine whether there is the possibility for them to commit other acts of violence. Because risk management requires the consideration of both situational and psychological factors, it requires constant modification and review so that public safety is ensured. The management of dangerous offenders in the recent past has brought about a lot of concern the world over. This concern has been mostly reflected in the media and other social forums (Armstrong, 2004). One of the areas that have sparked too much concern from the public is area of sexual offences. This type of crime has led to the outcry in the media where there have been campaigns against sexual offences in the society. In these campaigns, the media seeks to identify the sexual offenders, publish their names and shame them so that they do not repeat the same habit again. The campaigns also encourage the use of vigilante justice as well as the formation of a punitive attitude in the public towards sexual offenders. In the long run, such a campaign would lead to the isolation and stigmatization of sexual offender who would be expected to seek rehabilitative programs and reforms (Kemshall, 2003). A lot of articles in the media today contain news about sexual offences. Sexual crime has been dominating the media headlines probably because of the prevalence rate of the crime. This type of crime has, therefore, provoked public outcry because of the publicity it receives. This publicity generated by the media has, however, caused a number of negative effects on the perspective of sexual offences and offenders. It has affected the public’s opinion on sexual crimes as well as their perception on the necessary measures that should be taken in cases of sexual crime (Kemshall, 2000). The general perception created is that of a looming danger to all women and children. They are continually reported as the target group for sexual monsters. When the media concentrates on only one category of sexual offenders, they create the impression that pedophilia, for example, is increasingly rampant. Media may also influence a punitive attitude in the public in relation to sexual criminals. Increased political and media outcry on this subject provokes the public to assume activities like vigilante policing. The attitude of the public towards sexual offenders as well as heightened hysteria is also provoked. It is these attitudes formed towards sexual offenders that necessitate the management of risk. The public should, therefore, be protected from sexual offenders at all costs (Phoenix, 2010). The concept of risk management in the criminal justice system has been significantly used in the protection of children and regulation of sexual abuses directed to children as well. When an offender is released from detention of a correctional facility, the criminal justice system should ensure that they follow up and assess the risk that the individual may pose to the society and take the necessary measure for the management of such. Therefore, the purpose of doing risk assessment and management is classifying the offenders so that they can be placed into the suitable institutions for rehabilitation (Kemshall, 2003). The use of risk management measures may not be seen as the right objective for some offences. It would be the opinion of many that the offenders face the full wrath of the law instead of being given some management opportunities. The rape and burglary cases described are such examples of cases where risk management may not be the right way to go for the criminal justice system. The offender in the rape case had been observing the victim for some time and, therefore, knew the time that she goes home fro school. The offender even confesses to the victim, Mary Anne SMITH that he knows where she lives. That means that he comes from the neighborhood. When an offender is from the same neighborhood as the victim, the situation for any chance of risk management gets really complicated. This is in reference to the fact that the community will obviously be angered by being wronged by one of their own. Even if the criminal justice system opts for risk management in such a case, it would be very hard for the community to welcome back the sex offender into the society (Kemshall, 2003). According to the case details given, the sex offender had premeditated and planned everything before hand. This can be seen in the way he lures his victim into the van by pretending that he needed help with something. Then the way he straps the victim’s hands and gags her mouth shows that he might not be a first-time offender. After the offender drives for sometime with the victim, we see him changing vehicles from the van into the car. He seems to be trying to complicate his trail so that he cannot be traced by anyone. The offender also uses intimidation and threats to scare the victim from reporting the incident. He threatens her that he would harm her family if she goes on to report the incident. The victim is, of course, hurt. She must be suffering from overwhelming trauma after the sexual molestation considering that she is only 14 years old. The experience of the ordeal might still go on and haunt her for the rest of her life. The criminal justice system seems to be concerned too much about the rehabilitation and management of offenders while forgetting about the victims. Seeking to rehabilitate the sexual offender in such a case would not be the best alternative or objective. If he is not punished by the law for his deeds, the community will feel shortchanged by the justice system (Kemshall, 2008). If the justice system uses the existing risk management procedures available, they may end up releasing him back into the society. This is totally not a good option since the offender comes from the same neighborhood as the victim. How would she feel if she sees the person who molested and abused her walking free? The priorities of risk management in the criminal justice system should, therefore, shift from the offender to the victims. This is because they are the ones who end up having a hard time recovering from the ordeals of the crimes. Instead of thinking about risk management for the sexual offenders, they should be given the harshest criminal sentence according to the law. In this way, they will probably recover and rehabilitate in the correctional facilities. It would be hard for the community where the victim comes from to accept sexual offenders back into the society since they are seen as a disgrace and a danger to other people. The rehabilitation efforts for the offenders should be done in the correctional facilities as they serve their sentences (KEMSHALL, 2003). The objective that the criminal justice system should be prioritizing on is the healing of the victims. In this rape case, for example, the victim is traumatized from the ordeal that she went through. The justice system should be concerned with the rehabilitation of such a victim since she can be overwhelmed by vengeful feelings and end up with some criminal behavior. She should be helped to recover from such trauma. The sex offender in this case is an adult, probably in his 30’s while the victim is a minor who is not sexually active. The offender is, therefore, an adult with sound who preys and attacks a minor and abuses her sexually. To rehabilitate such a person will not have any benefit to the criminal justice system. This is because he might return to this behavior later if he is released after going through a risk management process. The victim, on the other hand, is a minor who has never been sexually active, even though she has a boyfriend. In this case, she is abused both anally and vaginally by the attacker. This is a very traumatizing experience to her. Any efforts for psychological rehabilitation should be directed to the victim since she is the one who suffered a lot from the experiences in the case (Kemshall, 2003). The same applies in the burglary case. Criminal justice systems should seek to have the right mechanisms for the management of the circumstances that are brought by the case. Although the culprits are young men below the age of 20, they are not first time offenders. They have a criminal record of this type of crime. Since this is not their first criminal activity, they must have premeditated and planned the burglary before hand. According to the criminal justice system, such criminals are just about to become hardcore criminals because of the number of crimes they have committed in the area before. Also the fact that these two offenders have committed their crimes in Salford area speaks volume on the choice of their location. Maybe they come from around the area. This is because of they way they seem to know their way around the houses including the door-security used in the houses (Maguire, et al. 2001) The criminal justice system should not opt for a risk a management system in this case either. This is because the offenders would probably not be rehabilitated under any circumstances. What would be best for them, the victims and the society at large would be for them to receive the full wrath of the law and serve jail time as stipulated in the Burglary Act. The community where the burglary occurred is probably scared that their area has a high vulnerability to crime (Kemshall, 2003). To rehabilitate the offenders in any way other than sentencing them in a court of law, would be a disappointment to the community. They would like to see the culprits brought to book by the law of the land. In this way, they would feel safer in their homes. They would not have the fear of their houses being broke into again since the notorious criminals in the area would be detained. Any other would-be criminals would also think twice before involving themselves in criminal activities in the area, and especially burglary. For the criminal justice system, a risk management system would, therefore, disappoint the public (Kemshall, 2000). The two burglary criminals have been involved in previous criminal activities such as assault and burglary in the area. In this case, they most likely used the same blunt object to break into their victim’s home. This shows that they are organized criminal who in addition to having been convicted before, continue with their criminal activities. In order for the risk they pose to the society to be eliminated completely, the criminal justice system has to take harsh measures against them. Some of these measures may include a full sentence conviction according to the law. These jail sentences should include a correctional program probably in a correction facility. To set free these criminal because of public outcry would not be of any help in the pattern of crime. The priorities in such a situation would be to ensure that the criminals do not interact with the community until it is proven that they do not pose any danger at all (Kemshall, 2008). The measures that are normally taken by the criminal justice system for management of risk are mot always the best choice. A good example where risk management should not be applied is the rape and the burglary cases. In both of these cases, the offences are committed by multiple offenders as opposed to first time offenders. Would they be first time offenders, maybe rehabilitative measures would be an option. In the rape case, for example, the victim is a young teenage girl who is not sexually active. The offender has probably been observing her schedule to and from school and knew that she would be alone on that fateful day. Then he waylays her and kidnaps her and then proceeds to abuse her sexually. The victim is left with a lot of trauma since she did not have any knowledge of sexual activity before she was left (Kemshall, 2008). It is this amount of trauma that calls for the need of psychological help for the victim. The criminal justice system should place a lot of priority in the healing process of the victim. Then the offender should be punished by law in measures that will ensure that he does not pose dander to young girls and women or the society at large. A risk management procedure would have probably had the offender admitted in a rehabilitative facility where after a short period of time, he would be released. Then he would obviously go back to his old behavior of preying on young girls and sexually abusing them. The victim, on the other hand, should be taken care of so that she can undergo a mental and physical healing (Raynor, 2007). In this case, therefore, proper assessment should be done in accordance with the law so that the proper measures are taken for both parties. In the burglary case, the offenders have a criminal record of assault and burglary. This means that they are probably serial offenders in that area. To seek a rehabilitative option for such criminal offenders would not be an option. This is because the criminals would probably revert to their criminal activities after some time. Therefore, crime management in the criminal justice is not always the best objective in a criminal case. In this burglary case, it would be expected that the criminal offenders be convicted for their deeds (Kemshall, 2003). In conclusion, therefore, the criminal justice system should not be always focused on the use of risk management measures in criminal cases. In cases which involve multiple offenders and those who had been convicted before, criminal risk management is not an option. This is because the method would probably not produce any positive results that would benefit the society. In order to benefit both the victims and the society at large, rehabilitative measures should taken on the victims while the offenders get convicted and locked in correctional facilities where they would not be of any danger to the society (Kemshall and McIvor, (eds.) 2004). Bibliography Armstrong, D. 2004 “A Risky Business?Research, Policy, Governmentality and Youth Offending.” Youth Justice 4(2):100-116. Baker, K. 2005 “Assessment in Youth Justice: Professional Discretion and the Use of Asset.” Youth Justice 5(2):106-122. Brown, M., and Pratt J. (eds.) 2000 Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order. London: Routledge. (See, especially, Chapters 5 and 6) Bullock, K. 2011 “The Construction and Interpretation of Risk Management Technologies in Contemporary Probation Practice.” British Journal of Criminology 51:120-135. Fitzgibbon, W. 2008 “Deconstructing Probation: Risk and Developments in Practice.” Journal of Social Work Practice 22(1):85-101. Kemshall, H. 2000 “Conflicting Knowledges on Risk: The Case of Risk Knowledge in the Probation Service.” Health, Risk, and Society 2(2):143-158. (Good general intro to risk) Kemshall, H. 2003 Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. (e-book) Kemshall, H. 2008 “Risks, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk.” Youth Justice 8:21-37. Kemshall, H., and Maguire, M. 2001 “Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penalty: The Multi-Agency Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders.” Punishment and Society 3(2):237-264. Kemshall, H., and McIvor, G. (eds.) 2004 Managing Sex Offender Risk. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. (e-book) Mcalinden, A.-M. 2006 “Managing Risk: From Regulation to the Reintegration of Offenders.” Criminology and Criminal Justice 6(2):197-218. Maguire, M., et al. 2001 Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders: The Work of Public Protection Panels. London: Home Office, Police Research Series Paper 139. Available online at: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hopolicers/prs139.pdf. [See “Chapter 3: Risk Assessment and Management in Action.”] Murphy, T., and Whitty, N. 2007 “Risk and Human Rights in UK Prison Governance.” British Journal of Criminology 47:798-816. Phoenix, J. 2010 “Pre-Sentence Reports, Magisterial Discourse and Agency in the Youth Courts in England and Wales.” Punishment and Society 12(3):348-366. Raynor, P. 2007 “Risk and Need Assessment in British Probation: The Contribution of LSI-R.” Psychology, Crime and the Law 13(2):125-138. 12 Robinson, G. 2002 “Risk Management in Probation Practice: Contemporary Developments in England and Wales.” Punishment and Society 4(1):5-25. Sutherland, A., and Jones, S. 2008 MAPPA and Youth Justice: An Exploration of Youth Offending Team Engagement with Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for Criminology. Available online at: https://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/MAPPA%20full%20report%20final.pdf. Youth Justice Board 2009 Youth Justice: The Scaled Approach. A Framework for Assessment and Interventions. London: Youth Justice Board. Available online at: http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/Youth%20Justice%20the%20Scaled%20Approach%20-%20A%20framework%20for%20assessment%20and%20interventions.pdf. Elliott, C., and Quinn, F. 2002 English Legal System. London: Pearson. Ch. 10: “Sentencing.” Thomas, D. 2002 “The Sentencing Process.” Ch. 25 in The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, edited by M. McConville and G. Wilson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tata, C., et al. 2008 “Assisting and Advising the Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of „Quality? in Pre-Sentence Reports.” British Journal of Criminology 48:835-855. Read More