Competition Is Better than Cooperation - Essay Example

?COMPETITION IS BETTER THAN COOPERATION IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES of Institution Date: Competition Is Better Than Cooperation in the Relations between Criminal Justice Agencies The criminal justice system has been defined as the set of processes and agencies that have been established by governments in order to control crime, as well as impose sanctions and penalties on individuals who have been found guilty of committing crime (Nash, 2010, p. 113). The criminal justice system is made up of five main components- corrections, courts, defence attorneys, prosecution, and law enforcement. The criminal justice system has various stages that facilitate the achievement of its goals and objectives. Intervention and supervision are two of those stages which make sure that criminal justice system remain relevant in controlling crime and imposing sanctions to convicted offenders. Intervention in regard to criminal justice system refers to the process of preventing or reducing the incidence of crime, as well as acts that minimize the potential adverse consequences of convicted offenders in the society (Gough, 2010, p. 22). Similarly, supervision in the criminal justice system is defined as the process of overseeing the tasks and behaviours of the convicted offenders within the correction component of the criminal justice with the view of ensuring that the imposed sanctions yield the desired outcomes. Supervision in the criminal justice system has also been defined as the process of regulating and controlling behaviours of the convicted through restrictions or rules with the aim of ensuring that at the end they can become responsible persons who can easily re-integrate into the society without posing any serious public safety threats (Church, 1985, 456). Over the years, there has been raging debate on whether competition is better than cooperation in relations between criminal justice agencies. The persistent question has been which between competition and cooperation facilitates effective achievement of objectives of the criminal justice agencies, and ultimately those of the criminal justice system. This paper will seek to address this question by focusing on the intervention and supervision stages of the criminal justice process. It will show that indeed competition is better than cooperation in the relations between criminal justice agencies. Customarily, the criminal justice system has not been operating as a coordinated whole. Instead, criminal justice agencies have heavily been emphasizing on their core legislative independence and functions, as well as on their operational imperatives. This arrangement has been informed by a wide range of factors. The first factor is that the criminal justice agencies have differing goals, functions, purpose, and roles and as such no single agency handles the case throughout the entire system. Secondly, the system is defendant focused, case and incident-based, an arrangement that makes the agencies to operate separately in order not to deviate from this arrangement (Gough, 2010, p. 25). Thirdly, a range of procedural and legal constraints keep information that had been obtained before out of the court consideration. As such, information held by a particular criminal justice agency about an incident, victim, or defendant is progressively filtered as it moves through various agencies of the system. The other factor that has contributed to the criminal justice system not to work as a coordinated whole is the power dynamic within the criminal justice agencies hierarchy and their widely diverse professional culture (Gebo, et al, 2006, p. 425). The criminal justice system has been witnessing myriad of challenges especially in regard to law enforcement and corrections. In particular, the rise of the rate of crimes such as burglary cases and rape and overcrowding in the correctional facilities has been some of the main challenges facing the criminal justice system. While there has been observable evidence that criminal justice agencies are doing enough to meet these challenges, a particular approach has not been agreed on the best way of achieving this objective (Kemshall and Maguire, 2001, p. 250). There are those who argue that competition between these agencies is a better approach in achieving this objective, while others argue that cooperation is. In the light of intervention and supervision stages of criminal justice process, competition is viewed as a better approach. Intervention and supervision stages of criminal justice process are intertwined. Effectiveness of different interventions is what determines the effectiveness of supervision as a whole. Actually, supervision has been defined as an intervention where the intent and purpose of the contact is aimed at motivating the convicted offender towards changing his or her behaviour (Nash, 2010, p. 116). The criminal justice agencies formulate their intervention and supervision based on what they deem to work. For example, if their target interventions is to high risk offenders, their supervision model will: target areas with identified heavy activity of crime; monitor sex offenders; use correctional options for high risk offenders; and use break the cycle techniques in monitoring the use of criminal services (Taxman, 2002, p. 18). Another example involves the use of cognitive behavioural interventions which require that supervision model to integrate cognitive behavioural therapy and identify interventions that are necessary for various offenders. Different criminal justice agencies ought to undertake different distinct and intertwined interventions and adopt supervision models that are deemed to yield the desired outcomes in criminal justice system (Hodgson, 2010, p. 319). While cooperation between criminal justice agencies may give a relatively desirable outcome in interventions and supervision, competition would provide more desirable results that will better facilitate the attainment of criminal justice system objectives. This is because the criminal justice agencies have differing goals, functions, purpose, and roles and can only perform effectively while competing in their respective mandates. There is evidence in the larger body of literature in the field of addictions, psychological, and corrections interventions which provide evidence regarding the practices that may be applicable to the supervision field. These practices have been designed in such a way that it they change the behaviour of the offenders and ensure that recidivism reduction has been maximized. However, there has been a question on whether these practices can work effectively through cooperation or competition between criminal justice agencies (Schearer, 2001, p. 20). If practices in other systems are anything to go by then competition is better than cooperation in the relations between criminal justice agencies. This is because of the findings of research which have shown that better relations and performance are best achieved through competition rather than cooperation especially in services that face continuous challenges. It has been found out that sustained behaviour change among convicted offenders cannot be attained within a short time. Therefore, to ensure sustained behaviour change the competition should be encouraged among the criminal justice agencies. Competition is important because it instils attitudes and values among the criminal justice agencies that are fundamental in achieving the objectives of the criminal justice system (Taxman, 2002, p. 18). It is worth noting that most convicted offenders have multiple needs such as mental health and substance abuse, which require appropriate and sufficient interventions and supervision. Competition will impact positively towards attending to the issues that impact on the offenders’ multiple outcomes. Since all the criminal justice agencies are aiming at having positive outcomes, competition will facilitate this and thereby enhance relations between criminal justice agencies (Nash, 2010, p. 115). Interventions offered in community-based facilities, the community, and in prison should be built on competition rather than cooperation in order to stimulate the need for the agencies to offer quality services towards performing their mandates effectively. More importantly, competition between criminal justice agencies promotes accountability among the agencies as each of them strives towards proper management strategies with the aim of outdoing the other. In a competition situation, criminal justice agencies participation is guided by the desire to attain results on the transparency and accountability platform (Gough, 2010, p. 28). Experts and practitioners in the criminal justice agencies are often faced with numerous complicated cases. Coming to a formidable solution on such cases such as child abuse, domestic violence heaps a great task to the system of court and these criminal justice agencies (Gibson and Cavadino, 2008, p.216). Time in time out; some experts have come to a conclusion that non-formal partnerships are the best strategy in tackling these vices in the society. A community that is transparent in law enforcement, supervision of the legal system and seeking a safe ground for the people is highly in demand. Therefore it must be noted with a lot of concern that it might present so many problems to justice system which might not be favourable to the community. Some of the dangers of cooperation in connection to criminal justice agency in the process of intervention and supervision are discussed below. Now, more than ever, it is apparent that such a system can adequately address these vices autonomously. Moreover, creating alliances within these fields proves to be more risky in administration of justice to the victims of crime such as rape and burglary (McConville et al, 2003, p.91). This is because information will be shared freely and in the long run tampering with the system of giving fair justice. When it comes to the widespread sexual molestation of the children; cooperation between the criminal justice department and the Youth Welfare calls for accountability on both partners in serving justice. The process of law enforcement and satisfaction of order in the society is highly tampered with. At the time law enforcement department are making efforts to obtain information in respect to the code of legality, professionals for the youth welfare group inquire of information which they are expected to pass on the workgroup in accordance to the data protection. For example, in connection to Mary’s case who was raped by an anonymous man, there are facts in connection to her health records that are not meant to be exposed to her fellow classmates. This might traumatize her even more to a point of tampering with the process of intervention. For the compulsory duty towards youth and the children, laws regarding data protection arise wholly from the Standards Generating Body (SGB) (Gough, 2010, p. 24). In the event an expert is left with the responsibility of personal data like in our case Mary’s a rape victim; for the intention of private and didactic help, he or she is entitled to secrecy or permitted to hand over under the stipulations of § 65 SGB VIII (Gough, 2010, p. 25). In relation to the law enforcement body, this can empirically come into force if the individual approves to the exposure or if there is an extraordinary circumstance of an inevitable state of crisis. § 64 SGB VIII sets out the provisions in which disclosure of other people’s-not authorized-data. From then on, such facts must be given only for the intention for which it was obtained for, of which in the scenario of SGB VIII, unquestionably is not permitted to be handed over to the agencies of law enforcement (Gough, 2010, p. 27). In the event the law enforcements agencies commits an offence of releasing the information then in reference to § 69 I SGB X, the professionals are allowed to seek legal redress against the offence. This is because it has negative impact in exposing the imminent child to danger by revealing of the information to the public. Same applies to the burglary case Mr. Clarke’s silver Mercedes C Class motor vehicle was stolen. By exposing the identity of the witness, her life is endangered or put at risk. Besides, cooperation is not efficient in a situation where anonymous social data is concerned. Presuming in a scenario where a discussion has to take place in a rape or burglary case among workgroups, then the youth welfare office has to make a decision on how to conclude it. It is difficult to pass the powers from one authority to another such as passing out the rape case of a minor to the law enforcement agency which is not yet known to them. Such a discussion can only be enforced based on unspecified social data. The information can yet be passed to the police in regard to the traumatized minor who will be forced to restate the ordeal of the events again and again. Moreover, the burglary case described concerns a minor and major suspect. This is because the suspects Raymond Murphy aged 17 and Paul Chadwick aged 18 is involved. Hence, if such information can be handed over to the Youth welfare desk or the police department depending on the group which is more determined to deliver justice, then their rights might be infringed in way or another (McConville et al, 1991, p. 49). Certain challenges might also rise in the event of cooperation of the public children department and the youth service and the criminal justice department. There comes a situation where the police in events of sexual abuse, might react in connection to witness reports. This is because both parties have diverse objectives, priorities way of advancing to the case at hand as well as the manner in which their mentality is fixed according to the guidelines and policies in the area of work (Doak, 2005, p. 311). The law enforcement has the objective of restoring justice and maintaining law and order in the society. The children and youth service office has the objective of protecting the child. The objectives vary to a great degree. Solution to the problem at hand can in no way be achieved in a situation of cooperation. Having a one on one talk with the public children and youth service department as well as the criminal justice agency, brings out the validity of civil law and criminal law at large (Meysen, 2007, 54) . It can be noted that a possibility of having a mutual claim on the crime at hand is not feasible. As much as the criminal department has the intentions to execute their duty, the public children and youth service on their side would wish to protect the rights of the children and minors. During the disagreement, the participants in the process of cooperation fail to recognize a common agenda which is protection of the child. Therefore, different perception result into a unique approach hence the proceedings of investigation in the rape case and the burglary case might yield positive results. Both groups pursue their goals vehemently and brutally under competition to a point of reaching a balanced conclusion (Gough, 2010, p. 32). The prosecutor’s manoeuvre, between the child protection and law enforcement to ensure justice is delivered equally to both parties. It must be noted that the justice department has the intention to scare other criminals who may not be in the court of law or in custody against such vices as rape and burglary. Crimes involving rape of minors normally calls for delicate handling by the children and youth department. On the contrary, the criminal justice department has intentions of handing justice in a timely manner to avoid tampering of evidence (Maguire et al, 2001, p.139). In the event the both parties tussle over on how to handle the case, then justice can be given amicably. This is because both parties might reach to a conclusion that will both yield the best outcome in a timely manner. Though some of the victims might suffer pain in the course of competition for justice and order, it is worth the fight. Similarly, in the case of burglary alleged by the description of the witnesses it involves minors of which it can be handled under the juvenile court. However, the police might have a differing opinion where Murphy and his accomplice might be treated as adults basing on the numerous crimes committed in the locality. Bibliography Church, T 1985, “Examining Local Legal Culture.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Summer (no. 3): 449-518. Doak, J 2005, “Victims Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation.” Journal of Law and Society 32(2):294-316. Gebo, E., et al, 2006, “Juvenile Justice Reform and the Courtroom Workgroup: Issues of Perception and Workload.” Journal of Criminal Justice 34:425-433. Gibson, B., and Cavadino, P 2008, The Criminal Justice System: An Introduction. Winchester: Waterside Press. [Competition is better than Cooperation in the Relations between Criminal Justice Agencies E-book; library catalogue] “Partnership and Working Together.” (pp. 215-217). Gough, D 2010, “Multi-Agency Working in Corrections: Cooperation and Competition in Probation Practice.” Ch. 2 (pp. 21-33) in Multi-Agency Working in Criminal Justice Control and Care in Contemporary Correctional Practice, edited by A. Pycroft and D. Gough. Bristol: University of Bristol, Policy Press. Hodgson, J 2010, “The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain.” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 35:319-362. 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. [Mainly pp. 247-252.] McConville, M., et al., 2003, Standing Accused. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See, Especially, pp. 90-92 “Seeing the Police;” 108-111 “Police Tactics to Undermine „No Comment? Responses;” 185-188”Courtroom W McConville, M. et al, 1991, The Case for the Prosecution. London: Routledge. [See, especially, pp. 36-38 “In the Police Station;” “Chapter 7: Reviewing the Case for Prosecution;” and “Chapter 8: Acquittals and Convictions.”] 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 2: Organizational and Partnership Issues.”] Meysen T, 2007, Parents loose custody rights, German institute for Family law and youth Nash, M 2010, “Singing From the Same MAPPA Hymn Sheet – But Can We Hear All the Voices?” Ch. 8 (pp. 111-122) in Multi-Agency Working in Criminal Justice Control and Care in Contemporary Correctional Practice, edited by A. Pycroft and D. Gough. Bristol: University of Bristol, Policy Press. Schearer, R 2001, “Strategic Alignment in Community Supervision of Offenders,” Perspectives: 18-21. Taxman, F, 2002, “Supervision- Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness,” Federal Probation, 66(2), 14-27. Read More