Mischief and Miscarriage in the Criminal Justice Process - Assignment Example

Community Service as an Option for Incarceration of Criminals in the Criminal Justice Process Insert Grade al Affiliation Date Mischief and Miscarriage in the Criminal Justice Process Introduction Traditionally, prisons were built to constrain and isolate criminals or those convicted for various crimes and illegal activities. Nonetheless, people have also been remanded in prison settings whenever their conduct is deemed suspect and that the hearing of their cases is best considered while they are under confinement (Berry 2011; p.80). In contemporary theory and practice, confinement is associated with extremity and it is considered that releasing prisoners to return to their communities while under supervision could be the best solution to combating crime (Roberts 2002; p. 397). Nevertheless, the advancement in the legal practice and in the administration of public affairs makes it possible to have criminals released from confinement allowed the freedom to participate in their social and economic lives without much deterrence. Such a process is sustainable on the basis that such persons are given corrective services while in their homes or with the society (Cohen 2002; p. 41)1. Prisons have served as a useful institution of isolation of criminals. It is however useful to have criminals effectively observed because they are in a different state of social cognition characterized by many altered feelings about social order, governance and public life. Prisons have ceased to deliver their corrective capacity as a result of the challenges in the economy today and therefore better methods should be gradually tested and ratified that will ensure more of the criminals are free in the society and are engaged into more meaningful work. Supervision in the community will offer the best option for correction due to the fact that there are technologies to monitor or aid the monitoring of criminals and that may assist in their correction. The community approach will also create an environment for the other civilian to be familiar with the restrictions that are attached to criminal activity and hence facilitate psychological adjustment and abhorrence for crime. Arguments for Supervision in the Community The condition that crime must be established beyond and reasonable doubt in a litigation process is a very high bar to attain in many litigation processes. Due to these high standards, it is meaningful that the program is obtained that will manage the loopholes for which many criminal have evaded justice through the criminal justice system (Ramsey, Latessa, & Travis 2003; p. 3). Suffice it to mention therefore, governments should seek to collaborate widely with many institutions in the process of administering justice. In the United States, the Megan’s law was issued which requires the local law enforcement agencies to put up notices to the general public if an offender is released for community supervision in any neighbourhoods in New Jersey. A great number of criminal cases are experienced among persons who are habitually inclined to the persistence offending. It is these categories that are better targeted for community supervision because they are vastly popular and have the elevated tendency for repeating crimes. It is useful to look at the policy options that can systematically improve the efficiency of the operations of the courts. In this light, if we viewed the option for community service against the background of the strict regulations that prevail when convicted individuals are incarcerated, it can be acceptable that community supervision at all times fall way below in terms of standards and is often the subject matter of deliberations in many policy considerations concerning the theory and practices in the legal justice system (McConville & Geoffrey 2002; p. 23)2. Form a policy standpoint also; the fact that incarceration of criminals is a costly activity for the state is welcome considerations which lead to the possibility of expanding the possibilities for having criminals serve terms while in community service (Gordon, 2006; p. 113). Many forms of options exist in the history of community service and each form requires a given consideration of competences in the nature of employees stationed in them. Since the system has not made a lot of arrangements in terms of the advancement of the professional qualifications of persons deployed in the system, the challenges might to enormous to contain (Davies, Croall & Tyrer 2010; p.13)3. This is one of the reasons that miscarriages in the justice system will always escalate. Nonetheless, effective policy regulation and with common public participation as stewards, greater progress is attainable. The best approaches to improve community supervision in the system are to institutionalize a program of reviewing the quality of programs and institutions engaged in the punishment and correction processes. If each and every stage of the justice system is audited, better practices and better policies will emerge in the system. However, if various players are not effectively monitored, they will always indulge in malpractices and may never be netted (Maguire, Morgan & Reiner, 2012; p.31). Thorough monitoring and supervision is therefore very useful. Alternatives and Considerations for the Criminal Justice System In many instances, the justice system is deemed to run parallel with the advancements in the criminal justice system. This is a common observation in the exercise of the English law (Braithwaite 2000; p.237)4. Nevertheless, the nature of the criminal justice system as enshrined in common law and in the English judicial system can permit very little philosophizing for the sole reason that without concrete procedures, and standard practices, the criminal justice system would be gravely be flawed because the element of human contemplation and ethics would provide a multitude of options which are not ideally practicable in reality. The post modern social scenarios in the world today reflect a wide departure from the notions of social nationalistic lifestyles previously cherished (Roberts 2002; p.395)5. Moreover, the highly mechanized world of communication, commerce and social living makes it possible for authorities to monitor criminals adequately though various technological implements. Apart form the fact that crimes will change considerably, the manners of criminal activity will also change and therefore methods of punishment should also change (Forst 2010; p.1209). In such a circumstance, the procedures and theories of punishment need to be altered to embrace the new system of administrative practices and governance. Viewed against the background of the strict regulations that prevail when convicted individuals are incarcerated, it can be appreciated that community supervision always fall way below in terms of standards and is often the subject of debate in many policy considerations regarding the theory and practices in the justice system (Forst 2010; p.1209)6. Form a policy perspective also; the fact that incarceration of criminals is a costly activity for the state is welcome considerations which lead to the possibility of expanding the possibilities for having criminals serve terms while in community service. Supervision in the community is hailed because of the low cost attached to it. However, the possibility that convicted persons are effectively corrected might be low as compared to the practices associated with incarceration of criminals. The fact that community service is seen by many victims of crime as ineffective may only act to increase the incidences of crime (Davies, Croall & Tyrer 2010; p. 19). When the actual victim of criminal offense is not satisfied that their adversaries are punished, it is often tempting to experience a cycle of crimes because they may plot effective mechanisms of vengeance. Cycles of vengeance are particularly vicious as has been appreciated in the criminal justice system (Maguire, Morgan & Reiner 2012; p. 12)7. The only suitable way to diminish miscarriages in the criminal justice procedure is by attaining constructive conditions for the people running that sector. First, the police need to be better supported with effective equipments of recording crimes and criminal events. The courts also should be well served with important equipment and strategic forces of crime investigation and litigation practices (Norrie 1996; p. 59)8. The law and policies about proof need to be made more encompassing so that evidences can be efficiently preserved. It is also constructive that in the courts and institutions around court, a lot of protection safeguards are erected to guarantee that only wrong acts get punished and those who are not guilty are acquitted methodically. After an exhaustive analysis of the processes and institutions in the justice process, it can be seen that the best approaches to avert miscarriages in the system are to institutionalize a program of reviewing the value of programs and institutions engaged in the punishment and rectification processes (Leipold 2005; p.1123)9. If each and every stage of the justice system is audited, better practices and better policies will emerge in the system. However, if various players are not effectively monitored, they will always indulge in malpractices and may never be netted. Thorough monitoring and supervision is therefore very useful. Conclusion The necessity to award certain categories of criminals with freedom is justified on the basis that containment or imprisonment restricts them and denies them a useful ability to contribute effectively to the social and economic progress of the society. However, such freedom must be granted on in consideration of the nature of their crimes and terms of imprisonment granted in court. In such a system, it is useful to isolate minor crimes and grievous crimes as society would define them and consider the use of community service for crimes regarded as minor crimes. Nonetheless, the fact that community service is a mild way of receiving punishment by a criminal offender must be acknowledged. Furthermore, the use of community service should be widened in circumstances that are deemed suitable. For instance, the offenders must be deployed to places that are remote to the locations where they committed offences. Community service is acknowledged on the basis that it is less costly to the state and as such desirable in situations when the state wishes to save or invest in more lucrative ventures. This condition therefore befits a justification but the system of community service must be adjusted to embrace progressive orientations so that the intention to have offenders punished is attained. Without effective correction of persons in the criminal justice system, it is possible that the offenders will simply proliferate and crimes escalate. Bibliography Berry Iii, W. W. (2011). Do Due Process Protections against Unreliable Eyewitness Identifications Apply to All Situations, or Only When Police Orchestrate Suggestive Circumstances. Preview US Sup. Ct. Cas., 80. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. British journal of criminology, 40(2), 222-238. Cohen, E. D. (2002). Pure legal advocates and moral agents revisited: A reply to memory and rose. Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(1), 39-55. Davies, M., Croall, B. & Tyrer, S. (2010) Criminal Justice (4th ed) London: Pearson Longman. Forst, B. (2010). Managing miscarriages of justice from victimization to reintegration. Alb. L. Rev., 74, 1209. Garland, D. (1996). The Limits of the Sovereign State Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society. British journal of criminology, 36(4), 445-471. Gordon, G. S. (2006). Toward an International Criminal Procedure: Due Process Aspirations and Limitations. bepress Legal Series, 1695. Holtzoff, A. (1965). Shortcomings in the Administration of Criminal Law. Hastings LJ, 17, 17. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems. British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 129-146. Leipold, A. D. (2005). How the Pretrial Process Contributes to Wrongful Convictions. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 42, 1123. Maguire, S., Morgan, P. & Reiner, S. (eds) (2012). The Oxford Book of Criminology (5th edition) London: Oxford University Press. Marcus, P. (2002). Re-evaluating Large Multiple-Defendent Criminal Prosecutions. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 11, 67. Mcconville, M. & Geoffrey, W. (2002): The Handbook on the Criminal Justice Process. New York: Oxford University Press. Mill, J. (1939). Criminal Law and Procedure in England and Scotland Compared. J. Crim. L., 3, 605. Norrie, A. (1996). The limits of justice: Finding fault in the criminal law. The Modern Law Review, 59(4), 540-556. Paul, B. (2009). Formalizing plea bargaining in justice and equality in the English legal system. Publications Oboulo. com. Popple, J. (1989). The right to protection from retroactive criminal law. Criminal Law Journal, 13(4). Ramsey, R. J., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. (2003). False positives in the criminal justice process: An analysis of factors associated with wrongful conviction of the innocent (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati). Roberts, P. (2002). Double Jeopardy Law Reform: A Criminal Justice Commentary. The Modern Law Review, 65(3), 393-424. Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Does criminal law deter? A behavioural science investigation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24(2), 173-205. Tucker, A. (2012). Scarce justice The accuracy, scope, and depth of justice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 11(1), 76-96. Read More