Operations of the American Criminal Justice System - Report Example

Operations of the American criminal justice system follow the set rules established by the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968. Under the act, the courts, the police, and the department of correctional services are elements of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice involves a network of institutions and practices of government agencies whose main aim is to ensure there is order in the society by preventing and mitigating crime (Cook, 2001). It investigates, prosecutes, and punishes offenders by charging them with criminal activities upon production of evidence, which results into the rehabilitation of the individual upon successful prosecution by the state. The responsibility of rehabilitating these individuals lies with the various prison facilities made by the American Federal and State governments. This paper focuses on the department of corrections as an element of the criminal justice system, and in doing so this paper discusses parole as an aspect of the corrective system. This paper defines the meaning of parole, the problems it faces in the American justice system, suggested policies for its improvement and their implementation, and how the suggested policies will improve the effectiveness of the parole system. This paper will describe the procedures of parole application and their weaknesses. In achieving its objective, this paper briefly describes prison confinement and rehabilitation programs. It is after confinement and incarceration that an offender can apply for parole. This paper will analyze reasons for confinement and their relation to application of parole. It will describe other forms of punishment which an offender cannot qualify for parole, such as capital punishment which involves death sentence. This analysis shows that this paper seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What is parole as an issue in the department of corrective services? 2. What are problems affecting the parole system in America? 3. What are the evidences depicting this ineffectiveness? 4. How can the authorities improve the parole system? 5. How can the authorities concerned implement the changes? 6. How will the policy increase the effectiveness of the parole system? The most dominant form of criminal punishment is the prison sentence, and it is the department of corrective services that implements this form of punishment. Prisons serve as the detention centers of criminals after trial, and the Quaker movement in America laid emphasis on prisons as a mode of rehabilitation (Cook, 2001). This aspect is practiced by the American federal government and states. Imprisoning criminals by the state has an effect of removing them from the society, so they cannot continue with criminal activities. Another goal of the prison sentence is to give offenders a chance to rehabilitate, and upon their release the state expects them to live according to the norms of the society. American prison systems offer schooling facilities and skilled labor training to offenders, giving them a chance to learn skills necessary for survival upon release from the prison. If a prisoner shows signs of improved character, he can apply for parole before the end of his or her sentence. Parole refers to the release of prisoners before serving their full sentence, based on confirmation and promise that they will abide by conditions set by the parole boards. It is different from mandatory supervision where an offender is released from prison before the end of his term due to legal technicalities. Parole was first developed by Alexander Machonochie in 1840 when he became the superintendent of British penal institutions in Norfolk Island, Australia.Alexander developed a plan to prepare prisoners for integration in the society by grading them into three ascending grades (Walker et al., 2007). The first two grades were on the basis of better performances in discipline, labor, and study, and the final grade was the conditional release from prison. Violating the terms will mean going back to prison and starting the grades again. The first person to introduce parole system in United States of America is Zebulon Brockway; he did this when he became the head of Elmira Reformatory in New York (Cook, 2001). His main priority was to manage prison population and rehabilitate offenders. He came up with indeterminate sentences and parole releases as a strategy to rehabilitate offenders and reduce prison population. In the modern American era, it is the court that decides whether the offence committed qualifies for parole. A court can sentence an offender to (for example) ten years without parole or ten years to life with possibility of parole. This is known as indeterminate sentence, and Brockway is the first person to introduce it while managing Elmira Reformatory. After the court sentence, the decision of whether an inmate qualifies for parole is made by the parole board. In coming up with a decision, many factors are considered, and not only the good conduct of an inmate. The board considers chances of the inmate in realizing gainful employment, his accessibility to self-social support services like the American Social Security Support, and the permanent residence of the offender. On application of the parole, an inmate has to follow and satisfy certain procedures and conditions. An inmate has to write an application to the parole board as to why he or she qualifies for parole, after which he or she has to meet the members of the parole board where an interview is done concerning the inmate’s eligibility. This normally involves an oral exam and a psychological one (Schmalleger, 2012). The next stage is for the inmate to sign a contract outlining his agreement to abide by the parole conditions set by the board, after which he is released to a parole officer. The conditions of the contract usually set up the standards of behavior acceptable by the board, and this includes desisting from taking drugs, visiting the victim’s home, and maintaining stable job. The role of parole officers is to monitor the conduct of the released offenders and prepare periodic reports on their welfare and status. They can make unannounced visits to the offenders’ home to monitor their behavior and check on whether they violate the terms and conditions of their release. While making conclusions on whether an offender should still enjoy the benefits of parole or detained again, the parole board relies on the probation officers’ reports. However, this parole system faces numerous challenges and disadvantages. The first challenge involves lack of a uniform guideline and policy to warrant the issuance of parole to offenders in the United States of America. Various states in America have their own standards set for issuing out parole to applicants. For instance, some states do not issue parole to murder offenders, while others, basing on the circumstances of a murder, allow their parole boards to issue parole to such offenders. For instance, the state of New York abolished parole for violent crimes, and it only issues it for minor offenses (Schmalleger, 2012). The American Department of Justice supports this notion by outlining that 16 states in America have abolished parole and 4 do not issue parole to offenders of violent crime. This lack of a standard policy in implementing the parole system is its main disadvantage. These differences arise out of the notion that parole enhances the acceleration of crime. For example, in 2005, a report by the American department of justice states that in that year 45% of inmates under parole successfully completed their sentence, while 38% failed to abide by the conditions of the parole board and returned to prison, and other 11% absconded (Walker et al., 2007). In the statistics, it can be noted that 52% of parolees failed to abide by the conditions of the board, thereby depicting the failure of the system. The best way to improve this is to establish a standard law to be followed by all states operating in America concerning the parole system. The next problem arises out of the supervision of the parolees by probation officers. Blame is made to the inefficiency of parole officers in the supervisory role that made the 11% of parolees to escape. This inefficiency arises due to lack of enough parole officers to supervise the released offenders. To mitigate this, authorities need to hire more parole officers and train them on the best parole procedures and effectiveness for better supervision of released offenders. The problem of different states having different standards for implementing parole can be solved by the federal government initiating a law that outlines the basic conditions according to which offenders qualify for parole. To do this, the federal government needs to establish a commission to investigate the ineffectiveness and problems affecting this policy and thereafter give recommendations. The law should be universal and entrenched in the omnibus crime control and Safety Streets Act of 1968. When this policy is entrenched into a law, it will acquire legitimacy among corrective services officers and they will be obliged to follow it. This is because they are guided by various ethical procedures, and among them is following the rule of law. Officers who will not obey the law risk facing disciplinary measures and can lose their jobs. Tough conditions must be set by the laws for the release of prisoners through detention, and this must be after consultations with various states and experts on parole policy. In conclusion, some states in America have embarked on improving their security system and limiting the issuance of parole. For instance the three strikes law which has been enacted by a variety of states aims to keep persistent offenders in prison for their entire lives, while other states have removed the right of parole boards to grant parole and have cut down on the roles of parole supervisors, leading to release of prisoners directly. The parole system is a highly controversial security debate in America, with legislators divided on whether to support it or not. To succeed in implementing this policy, a common denominator needs to be established and consensus built. References Cook, J. R. (2001). Asphalt justice: a critique of the criminal justice system in America. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Schmalleger, F. (2012).Criminal justice: a brief introduction (9th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (2007).The color of justice: race, ethnicity, and crime in America (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Read More