Rethinking the Criminal Justice System - Term Paper Example

Introduction Criminal justice system is a system of laws, practices and institutions in a country which is controlled and directed by the government. The main objective of a criminal justice system is to control the criminal activities by upholding the law and order. Criminal justice system is not limited it activities to just punishing the criminals, but it interprets the law formulated by the government and help the public to get justice in disputed matters. “Criminal justice is rights-respecting treatment that is deserved by virtue of criminal conduct as judged by the rule of law. Thus, doing justice implies at least four things: hold offenders fully accountable for their offenses, protect offenders' constitutional and legal rights, treat like offenses alike, and take into account relevant differences among offenders and offenses” (DiIulio, Jr.) The American justice system is focused more on reducing the crime and to increase the public confidence on the system. Policing and courts are the two major institutions of American criminal justice system. Police is responsible for arresting the criminals and reporting the crime to the court where the judges took decisions with the help of arguments and counter arguments put forward by the counsels of the accused and the public. American criminal justice system often captures the headlines of the media because of the controversial verdict it gives on certain issues. This paper analyses American criminal justice system with respect to the contradictory goals and competing expectations, the connection between abolishing parole and an increase in sentences of probation, social contract and punishment, involvement of probation and parole officers in criminal justice system, necessity of probation and parole etc. Contradictory goals and competing expectations of American criminal justice “Among other things, the American public wanted a criminal justice system that apprehends and visits harm upon the guilty (punishment); makes offenders more virtuous, or at least more law abiding (rehabilitation); dissuades would-be offenders from criminal pursuits (deterrence); protects innocent citizens from being victimized by convicted criminals (incapacitation); and enables most criminals to return as productive citizens to the bosom of the free community (reintegration)” (DiIulio, Jr.) The expectation of the public about the American justice system is so high and they want to fulfil their expectations with respect to the strict guidance of the public laws. In other words, when criminal activities increases, the public will accuse the criminal justice system for their inefficiency in enforcing the law and order; at the same time even a minor mistake committed while keeping law and order by the criminal justice system will be exaggerated by the same public. Public mood will change periodically and they often take contradictory stands with respect to the functioning of the criminal justice system. “For example, between 1967 and 1992, the Federal Government fought two very different wars on crime. The first war (1967-80) was against poverty; the second (1980-92) was against criminals” (DiIulio, Jr.) Both these wars have resulted in severe public criticisms even though nobody questioned the objectives of these wars. Connection between abolishing parole and an increase in sentences of probation Parole is a process of allowing the criminal to interact with the society for a limited period decided by the jail authorities. After that period is over the criminals on parole must return to the jail. Probation on the other hand is a conditional suspension of sentence. Criminal on probation can avoid further journey to the prison if they keep all the conditions during their probation term. Most criminal like to have probation rather than parole since probation allows them to stay in the real world which are free of any barriers of the jail even though they have to obey certain rules and regulations. Social contract and punishment The concept of punishment requires the state to impose harm on convicted offenders. The true thrust behind this work, though, is not whether punishment should be harmful but whether the theories of punishment make sense. The major objectives of punishment is rested on prevention, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (Golash) As per the utilitarian theory, the punishment must be enforced if it brings more good than harm. Threat of negative consequences will retard the criminals from engaging in criminal activities. The barriers enforced by the authorities during the punishment period will help the criminal to reshape its behaviour and character. Some kind of crimes is the result of psychological problems. Such criminals need treatments or counselling in order to avoid their criminal nature. Thus punishment is intended for preventing the future crimes and also to keep the society healthy by changing the characters and behaviours of the criminals. Involvement of probation and parole officers in criminal justice system Probation and parole officers are responsible for ensuring the desired behaviour of the convicted criminals in a society. They must keep an eye always on the routine activities of the criminals under parole or probation. They must accomplish their mission in such a way that the competing goals of punishment, public safety, offender rehabilitation, and deterrence are achieved. Moreover, these tasks must be executed within the limits of shrinking budgets, large case loads, increasingly high-risk offenders, low occupational prestige, and considerable political and public scrutiny. These competing demands often result in especially high levels of work-related stress. (Pitts) Parole and probation often require the criminal to have; Multiple weekly contacts w/officer, Random and unannounced drug testing, Stringent enforcement of conditions, i.e.,: maintaining employment, Required participation in treatment, education programs, etc. (Probation And Parole) It is the duty of the probation and parole officers that the criminals are keeping all the norms prescribed while sanctioning parole or probation to them. Necessity of probation and parole Probation is a court-imposed SANCTION that "releases a convicted offender into the community under a conditional suspended sentence where as parole is the "conditional early release from prison or jail, under supervision, after a portion of the sentence has been served (Probation And Parole) Probation and parole are necessary to test the progress of the criminals from their criminal behaviour to that of a good citizen. It is not possible to measure the progress of a criminal inside the prison. Inside the prison the criminals are under the strict supervision of the authorities and hence they will shy away from criminal activities. But in real world situations they may exhibit drastic changes and hence they must be tested in real world itself in order to assess their progress. Moreover, parole and probation is a way of renewing their social and family commitments Conclusions American criminal justice system functions with the intention of preventing the criminal activities in the society in order to fulfill the government’s commitments to the society. Public mood often swings between the extremities; sometimes they will accuse the system for harsh measures while in other occasions they will accuse the system for the liberal approaches. Parole and probation are the two strategies adopted by American criminal justice system in order to analyze the progress of criminals in the real world situations. Criminals often like to have probation rather than parole because of the more freedom it provides to them. Advocating the Elimination of Gender-Based Discrimination: The 1970s New Look at the Equality Principle (Summary of speech made on February 10, 2006 by Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States, at University of Cape Town, South Africa) Feminist movement, which was exhausted earlier, has been rejuvenated in the 1970’s in United States. South Africa’s constitution and America’s constitution are entirely different as far as provisions for opposing gender based discrimination. South Africa’s constitution has certain provisions to prevent gender based discrimination whereas the 220 year old America’s constitutions still don’t have enough provisions for preventing gender discrimination. Even some of the provisions provided in America’s constitution like "the equal protection of the laws" have been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court on many occasions and till 1971, the Supreme Court has turned away every woman's complaint that she had been denied equal protection by a state or federal law. From 1971 onwards, the court has taken a different approach favorable to the arguments of equal rights advocates while considering the gender based issues. The women’s Right Project which launched in 1972 was based on three dimensions; public understanding, legislative change, and change in judicial doctrine. These dimensions were assumed considering the husband as the head of the family who is the chief decision maker and the wife must conform thereto. As per the provisions listed in Appendix E (The U.S. Code "containing differentiations based upon sex-related criteria), it was the duty of the single women, but not single men, caring for an elderly, infirm dependent. The solicitor general has asked the Supreme Court to review the sex related provisions provided in Appendix E, in 1973. The solicitor general has informed the court about the unconstitutionality upon the many federal statutes listed in Appendix E. Legislators and judges, in those years, were overwhelmingly white, well-heeled, and male. Men holding elected and appointed offices generally considered themselves good husbands and fathers. Women, they thought, had the best of all possible worlds. Women could work if they wished; they could stay home if they chose. They could avoid jury duty if they were so inclined, or they could serve if they elected to do so. They could escape military duty or they could enlist. But the perceptions of the decision makers in the Nation's legislatures and courts were far from reality. Most of the legislations were inclined towards men the law makers have deliberately forgotten that even their own daughters and granddaughters could be disadvantaged by the way things were. In 1950’s and 60’s most of the American states have appointed only male juries in courts and hence the criminal activities did by women against their male counterparts were dealt seriously without analyzing the circumstances under which the crime has happened. Even a murder case which involves, a women accused of killing her husband, could have been dealt differently, if the jury of the court include females also. The male domination of men in the jury of the court always prevented women from getting a proper trial and judgment. Even in South Africa, women were considered unsuitable to serve as attorneys in the initial decades of the 1900. The idea of promoting women in key positions was considered as incompatible with the idea and duties of Motherhood in those years. The case, Reed v. Reed in 1971, which occurred in United States has cultivated seeds for destroying the discriminations against the females. This case was about the possession of a son’s belongings after his death. Both the father and the mother argued for it and two courts have given different verdicts on this issue. Even though the one of the court’s judgment was in favor of the mother, the other was in favor of the father. Sally, the mother has questioned the state law which was biased towards the males, in the Supreme Court which declared that the male preference statute unconstitutional. Another discrimination faced by the female community was in the American military where the female military officers were denied housing and medical benefits for their husbands. Family benefits were given to only the male military officers earlier, which were declared unconstitutional by the court in another case, Frontiero v. Richardson, 17 months after the Reed v. Reed case. Following the above cases, the court has upheld the equality perspective in both widowed mothers and widowed fathers cases. Moreover the court again declared that it is unconstitutional, allowing a parent to stop supporting a daughter once she reached the age of 18, but requiring parental support for a son until he turned 21. Even the drink ages were specified differently for men and women till 1976. The existing law till 1976, allowed young women to purchase "near beer," a beverage that contains only 3.2% alcohol, at age 18 but required young men to wait until they turned 21 to buy the weak brew. It was sometimes easier to convince judges-who were generally male-that overbroad gender classifications were problematic by showing them that men could be disadvantaged by sex-role stereotyping. In the 1970s for the first time in the history of the United States, the "average" woman was experiencing most of her adult years in a household not dominated by childcare responsibilities which was considered as "the single most outstanding phenomenon" of the late twentieth century by the Columbia University economics professor Eli Ginzberg. In short, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s, have successfully handled the gender based cases more effectively without any discrimination and the verdicts given by the Supreme Court during this period has rejuvenated the feminist movements and the females became more conscious about the discriminations they were facing till that time. References 1. Pitts, Wayne J. 2007, Educational Competency as an Indicator of Occupational Stress for Probation and Parole Officers, Retrieved on 11 August 2009 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/jn8437l474476688/ 2. DiIulio Jr. John J. Rethinking the Criminal Justice System: Toward a New Paradigm, Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, Retrieved on 11 August 2009 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/guide/documents/documentI.html 3. Probation And Parole,2003, Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, Retrieved on 11 August 2009 from http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/ probation-and-parole 4. Golash, Deidre, 2005, THE CASE AGAINST PUNISHMENT: RETRIBUTION, CRIME PREVENTION, AND THE LAW, Retrieved on 11 August 2009 from http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/golash305.htm 5. Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, (Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States), 2006, Advocating the Elimination of Gender-Based Discrimination: The 1970s New Look at the Equality Principle, Retrieved on 11 August 2009 from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_02-10-06.html Read More