Introduction to Criminal justice - Essay Example

The Criminal Justice System is no doubt one of the most integral components of a functioning government. By definition, the criminal justice system refers to a set of legal and social institutions set forth to enforce the criminal law in line with defined predetermined procedural rules and limitations. The notion of a "system" denotes a sense of high rationality with careful planning, coordination and regulation. As it seems, therefore, the criminal justice system is a generic term that engenders in it major subsystems composed of one or more interdependent institutions. Precisely, the criminal justice system is thus a whole made up of three components: the law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. Given the nature of crime sophistication in the modern era, becoming a crime statistic is perhaps one of the greatest fears amongst the living humankind. The main purpose of creating the criminal justice system is majorly to promote respect of the law for a just, peaceful and safe society. The execution of criminal justice purpose is organized into three categories with each component functioning to aid the other in the hierarchical order mentioned above. Criminal offenders’ initial contact with the criminal justice system comes via the police or rather law enforcement agencies whose mandate in and to the system is to investigate the nature of crime committed and make arrests, should they be deemed necessary. Noteworthy, effecting public and social order, which is a shared responsibility, is key while the law enforcement agencies carry out their duties. As such, a coercive means (force) defined within the legal parameters may be of due importance (Schmalleger, 2011). The function of the police ends with investigations and arrests. The courts system takes over from the law enforcement to administer justice. As an avenue of dispute settlement, the court system consists of professionals with good command of law and capable of dissecting issues at hand to dispense justice to deserved parties enjoined in the dispute. Concluding the criminal justice system process are the correctional facilities. Once proven guilty of the charges labeled, offenders proceed into isolation from the society for behavioral correction in approved institutions, which are not necessarily prisons contrary to the popular notion. Nevertheless, prisons among other correctional facilities are detention centers meant to reform criminal mindsets through punishment, and isolation/confinement from families and the society is inclusive. Such confinements come in different forms, which include but not limited to probation and house arrests. In extreme cases, correctional facilities execute capital punishment (Schmalleger, 2011). Notably, even though institutional actors in the three arms of the criminal justice system are interdependent, errors made in the initial stages by the law enforcement agencies are subsequently transferred in courts interpretations and execution of justice. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that judgmental verdicts handed to the poor are often skewed due to the limited amount of resources, those required to overturn the same inclusive. In this regard, therefore, one would be most honored to serve as a law enforcement agent; a career that demands a prerequisite delicacy and honesty to give integrity to the entire process of the criminal justice system. Indeed, nothing would be more fulfilling than dispensing justice that is often out of reach of the majority. Criminal Justice and Causes of Crime To recap on the above definition, Criminal justice is the predetermined system of practices and institutional agencies that are directly involved in upholding social order, deterrence and mitigation of crime, sanctioning punishments, execution, supervision, and/or rehabilitation efforts of suspected or proven law violators. Quite simply, criminal justice is a means of "enforcing desirable standards of conduct” for the greater good of the society. While the origin of criminal behaviors is an ongoing pursuit in the realms of academia, quite a number of thought-provoking suggestions into factors that triggers criminality are numerous and deserve mention. Surprisingly, most crimes committed are justified by the perpetrators as deserved according to criminal profilers’ supported evidence. But, are they? To begin with, it is widely acknowledged that crime forms out of social circumstances. Indeed, the chasm between the haves and the have-nots in the society may hugely impact the mind that so desires a certain kind of lifestyle that is seemingly out of reach, thereby prompting a shortcut mechanism that is obviously criminal in conduct for a way out. It is a fact that is all over in literature, more so to becoming common knowledge, that any race and culture with a higher segment of the poor population will typically register higher statistics of criminal behavior (Schmalleger, 2011). In a more generalized sense, the condition under which one lives plays a catalytic role to crime commissioning. It is undeniable that family dynamics, spanning from family environment and positive parenting, shapes behavior; particularly during childhood. Children brought up in environments devoid of love or secure financial base tend to develop aggressiveness that boarder more towards antisocial traits leading to delinquent behavior at some point in life. Such behaviors become more pronounced if there are some elements of certainty of no follow up punishment (social apathy). A familiar, supportive case in point is the personality pick-ups of serial killers. Born to a single, alcoholic, prostitute of 16 who displayed no affection, the infamous serial killer-Charles Manson grew up in a hostile environment that few would ever doubt shaped his behavior into becoming the person he finally became in his adult life. As a young man, Charles witnessed her mom drink, steal and use drugs, all which later shaped an attitude of hatred of women and life in general from early childhood. From the case above, it is evident that stress and trauma coupled with drugs and alcohol abuse are influential factors that support deviant behavior. The combined forces of post-traumatic stress and drug abuse aide by either having been a victim of violent crimes or firsthand witnessing of crime – obviously impacts greatly on individuals’ avoidant behaviors with consequential effects of exhibition of deviant personality traits such as social emotional distance, withdrawal and distrustfulness. Just to mention, drug abuse adds the danger of impaired judgment and reduced inhibitions out of the socially defined code of conduct, thus giving greater courage and urge to commit crime. Needless to say, incarceration, however long, has no meaning to a drunkard. Another factor considered key to making criminal life easier is the media violence and their policy of free information. The media’s modern day coverage of crime has had an immense role in fuelling criminality. With big-brother politics, money coming into play to influence coverage content, story lines are often molded to suit a host of interests (Schmalleger, 2011). With viewer demand always caught up in the middle, the media have become the mouth piece shaping the public’s viewership from the victims, law enforcement and even the criminals. It is indeed a fact that the media depiction of crime in certain instances, whether from television programs, books or newspapers, appears glamorous and fun, all in the name of profit making. However television shows may seem harmless, the impact is translated in criminal thoughts and subsequent commissioning of crimes that reverberates occasionally as fun and harmless acts. Even though many have achieved a considerable amount of a success without it, education remains a fundamental requirement for a successful life in every day society. As such, failure to attain a firm grip of educational principles at an early age is in itself a recipe of a chaotic lifestyle full of crime. Poor educational backgrounds are linked to manual employment history with low wages that are often smashed to sustenance level by the capitalistic modus operandi. No wonder that prisons are full of individuals who cannot read and/or write above elementary school levels; a target group of easy-sway influence for street life, drug trafficking, gang robbery, shoplifting and etcetera. Oppositional and conduct defiant-behaviors are induced external influences that are curable, especially in children, if noticed at early stages. Display of aggressive antisocial behaviors and disregard for authority are discernible traits that are often met with ridicule and negligence, only to develop into overblown violent behaviors in adulthood. While research into the causes of crime is currently a non-conclusive exercise, professional have made tremendous, informative discoveries into the operative mechanics of the criminal mind. Noteworthy, life begins at the family level. It is thus possible to divert deviant behaviors through family training and counseling therapies. The History of Policing Throughout history, societies have sought to protect themselves and their possessions against external interferences. In early civilizations, such protection was the duty of family members. Instinctively, the development of formal policing resulted from an informal set up, where members of a society shared the responsibility of keeping vigil for protection and maintenance of order (Schmalleger, 2011). From the informal set up, the process transitioned into assign responsibility to particular members of the society, members which later metamorphed into formal, organized protection units with permanent existence. Quite simply, the history of the police is punctuated with technical shifts from informal to formal policing (Schmalleger, 2011). Indeed, from a mechanical society where shared beliefs and values formed the basis for protection into organic social systems, time development of complex social control through history informed more specialization for a more secure public order. As the complexities tightened over time, organic social systems developed into states and governments, which monopolized the use of force within parametrical jurisdiction. It is almost common knowledge that the colonial British governmental controls were the precursors of the governmental institutions in the United States, and so American policing system is no exception. As insinuated above, the English law enforcement was the responsibility of individual citizens until the mid-1800s. However, the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 by William Duke changed course of policing into a responsibility of the chosen few. A century later, the system ran into civil disobedience forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta, limiting the power of the throne and their appointees. Courtesy of increased world trade participation during the 1500s through to the 1700s, the development of cities fueled a rising crime and disorder, thus prompting the establishment of Bow Street Runners; the pioneer crime investigation and prevention unit paid through public funds. Due to the prior opposition to the development of the rather combative forces, it took scholarly efforts particularly from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and jean Jacques Rousseau to whip support for a contractual framework of policing. Later proposals of separation of powers and the provision of checks and balances provided solid grounding for the establishment of the police force. In a sense, the philosophy championing the superiority of preventive rather than reactive/responsive measures informed the creation of quasi-military organizational structures to effectively deal with crime (Schmalleger, 2011). The history of law enforcement in the United States begun with colonialism and thus followed the English structural framework during the same time period. Being more of a colonial appendage to the London based government, law enforcement was the responsibility of the local citizens. Mimicking the England vigil efforts, there were night watch systems established to guard cities against incidences of fire, crime, and disorder in colonies. New York and Boston Night Watch established in 1626 and 1636 respectively became the first rudimentary policing ever established in the US. As the establishments caught momentum, effective command necessitated governor’s appointed sheriffs and the people elected constables. By 1705, Philadelphia City had patrol units divided into ten, each with sheriffs and constables leadership (Schmalleger, 2011). The reorganization brought about by industrialization, urbanization, and immigration in the 1800s changed the dynamics of the social set-up up from a primarily homogenous, agrarian one into a more complex heterogeneous, urban settings. The influx of thousands into cities in search of better livelihoods overpowered the meager supply of resources with dire consequential effects of deplorable conditions, which were recipes for increased crime rates and disorder. The new found status compelled the reinstitution and reengineering of the law enforcing efforts to better handle the frequent unrests witnessed in the 1830s. As part of the reorganization, Philadelphia organized a 24 hour police patrol in 1833 (Schmalleger, 2011). The phenomenon was replicated in other towns and cities with New York City advancing a notch higher in 1884 by establishing two police forces. As part of the new structural arrangements, the sheriff system was retained but with more defined roles. The invention of the telephone, the two-way radio system and police cars in the early 20th century was another milestone that greatly increased the capacity of the police to respond to criminal incidences and serve the public better. These significant advancements led to shifts in strategy with more adoption of reactive mechanisms centered on calls to service. More specifically, additional shifts in the 1960s saw the implementation of a diversified system of hiring law enforcement agents thus easing the racial tensions that were hitherto a source of social disorder. Several years later, community-policing has become another key element in adapting law enforcement system into communal acceptance. At the turn of the 21st century, law enforcement agencies in the United States are highly specialized organizations trained to meet the complex challenges of an ever changing face of crime, terrorism being at the extreme end. The world is no longer a safe haven, and the need for peace officers cannot be overstressed enough to ensure security. The Activities of the Court and role Jails/Prisons in the Criminal Justice system The courts system functions mainly to render justice through arbitration. As avenues of dispute resolution, the court system engender services of professionals with thorough knowledge in law and with capacity of dispensing justice on issues brought before them via correct interpretation and subsequent adjudication. Just to mention, courts system functions aided with the services of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys.   The determination of guilt or innocence of suspected crime offenders follows certain fundamentals with strict due process usually known as adversarial system where the adduced evidence of any criminal misdemeanor is weighed before the trial begins. Approval of evidence opens up another chapter where the defendant (suspect(s)) is/are presented the opportunity to answer to the accuser (s) adduced evidence to charges; answers which may be in the affirmative or otherwise denied (Schmalleger, 2011). Noteworthy, pretrial cases may be thrown-out or otherwise dropped should evidence be found to have been fabricated or are not strong enough to warrant a full-fledged trial. However, should evidence adduced bear strong links to criminal conduct, a suspect, who is assumed innocent until proven otherwise, undergoes the entire trial process. If found guilty at the end of the process, the suspect receives punishment commensurate to the offence committed based on a constitutionally preset criteria determined by a judge or jury panel.  The sentences rendered are served elsewhere in correctional instructions. As such, the guilty are handed over to the corrections system with details of the nature of the offenses supposedly committed and type of sentence to be served. With the basis being the law applied to the presented facts of a case, the jury’s verdict is tailored in favor of the party that offers the most convincing arguments. It is important to note that cases taken over by courts for trial should be adjudicated with all the fairness deserved; for this is the reasoning mandating arbitration. As such, charges pressed against a suspect by a prosecutor must be explained in clear terms to the bench and the defense attorney, whose obligation is to offer appropriate counsel and represent the client interest by holding the prosecution to prove the guilt as charged. The defense counsel may also raise nonprocedural and evidentiary issues that may result in the infringement of the right of the accused (Schmalleger, 2011). Jails/Prisons are primarily behavior correctional/reformation centers to those found by courts in a trial process to have violated the law. However, corrections offered in these facilities are not just blanket corrections, but are corrective punishments served in many forms. Incarceration in itself is a reduction measure against re-offending/recidivism by limiting freedom for a period of time. Indeed, the greatest function of jails is to sequester criminals found to be dangerous to the society outside the prison walls (Schmalleger, 2011). Prison time removes criminal away from the general population thus inhibiting their ability to perpetuate more crimes. The modern objective of prison has nonetheless shifted from an old punitive approach to a rehabilitative one. Research evidence has revealed that provision of problem specific/targeted programs such as communication skills, poor anger management, poor and inadequate self-control and illiteracy has tremendous positive outcomes in reducing possible reoffending rates. Thus, to avoid the risk of repeated imprisonment, nearly every prison in the criminal justice system today offer schooling or sector specific job training to model inmates’ ability to earn a living via legitimate means once let out behind bars. Additionally, heavy religious presence in prisons is an almost assurance that teaching of morally and ethically accepted principles is an ongoing process of reformation. No wonder that there are a greater number of parolees in the society today than days when prisons were almost considered death camps. While released as parolees, the prison officers still have greater responsibilities of monitoring with ready sanctions to ensure complete reformation of behavior (Schmalleger, 2011). However limited, capital punishment is still in use and may apply to individuals guilty of heinous and brutal crimes such as murder. The ethical dilemma of the element of cruelty of execution has fanned debate and even politicized the matter with its validity thoroughly in question. Whatever suggestions offered as of today, the fact of the matter is that it remains the jurisdiction of the prison facilities to facilitate execution once ordered by courts. Comparative Criminal Justice Most scholars are in agreement that the task of comparative criminal justice concerns the comparison and contrasting of response strategies adopted in dealing with the changing forms of crime through time. Quite simply, the task involves borrowing and subsequent leaning for a more robust and responsive approaches in criminal justice. The modern criminal justice systems face numerous common challenges of a seemingly ‘riskier society’ with deep roots in history, prompting the much sought after ‘safety utopia’ in a sense. Perhaps the nature of crime in the 21 century justifies the gravitating approach towards such ‘safety utopias’ hence the changing of tact from punitive to more workable measures in juvenile justice, drug and crime cases as well as multinational crimes such as terrorism. The history of juvenile justice is a narrative characterized by transformative enactments over concerns of conceptive recidivism of young offenders spanning from the twentieth century into the 21st century. The dawn of juvenile court era in the late 19th century witnessed young offenders being tried and sentenced as adults (Schmalleger, 2011). The rehabilitative juvenile justice model that seemingly begun during the first half of the twentieth century only unraveled in earnest in the 1960s with tougher challenge into the constitutionality of informal delinquency proceedings. Thus, the 1967 Supreme Court ruling In re Gault, holding that juvenile offenders had a constitutional representation right to a defense attorney was a milestone in disguise (Schmalleger, 2011). However, the sharpest attacks on the juvenile court system came in 1980s with conservative politicians poking holes into the system’s high recidivism rates thus instigating enactment of tougher policies via legislative strategies. The changes saw the lowering of judicial transfer age allowing criminal prosecution of adolescents aged 16 and below. Perhaps the dramatic of the changes was automatic transfer where all 13-year olds were to be tried as adults when charged with specific criminal offences such as murder. The upshot of the wholesale transfer reform movement, that basically shifted the boundary of childhood, has since become a reality for juvenile offenders. But, questions abound as to whether the subjection of juveniles to the same punitive adult court process is any helpful. Notably, the modern young offenders inflict more lethal harm than their predecessors mostly due to the existence of the readily available firearms, and so the defense in support of adult criminal liability makes sense in part. On the flipside, analysis reveals a deeply flawed process wriggled with hallmarks of moral panic reinforced by irrational collectivism of the media and politicians to perpetuated alarmed responses to perceived social threat. Outside the irrational response are the decision-making deficiencies, the vulnerability to external pressure, and the rather relatively unformed character of a teenager. Besides the issues of juvenile justice, the criminalization of drug use compounded by mandatory lengthy prison sentences is a major contributor to mass incarceration in contemporary America (Schmalleger, 2011). The last three decade has witnessed an extraordinary rise in the population of inmates with tremendous repercussions for a government battling recession and a range of socio-economic and political challenges. Evidently, resources that would have otherwise spurred infrastructural development, education, health care and a host of social needs have been redirected to the maintenance of drug offenders, quite a number of whom are descriptively low-level users. More specifically, the number of Americans in prison has burgeoned from a meager 330,000 inmates in the early 1970s to well over 2 million currently, making the United States’ statistics comparatively the highest the world over. The different types of drugs illegally in used in United States are numerous, and the link to social problems is rather countless. Cannabis, heroin, alcohol, cocaine, barbiturates, amphetamines, marijuana and tobacco are just but a shorter list of illegal drugs in use causing agonies to the hitherto solid familial structure. In addition to the above mentioned burden to the state that often trickle down to the common man, drug abuse is a prime factor in the spread of HIV, violence, the rising numbers of neglected and dependent infants, unwarranted accidents, loss of productivity and thousands of employment opportunities, total breakdown of families, just to mention but a few (Schmalleger, 2011). Quite a number of alternative proposals of “Harm Reduction” strategies to combat illegal drug use have been adopted with surprisingly good outcomes. It makes more sense to educate the public on the dangers of specific drug use and offer treatment interventions in affected cases than continue huge spending on incarceration. Of course the danger of trafficking/illegal distributions threatens public safety, and the demand of harsher penalties may seem justified in a way. Nevertheless, the costs of criminalization and adoption of punitive approaches on drug users are far much above the benefits with high economic and social costs worsening an ever increasing poor outcome of mass imprisonment (Schmalleger, 2011). Given the effectiveness of dozens of new scientifically tested methodology proven to cut down the numbers engaging in drug abuse each year, may be it is time to bypass the politics of fear and anger that have long driven antidrug legislation and vigorously pursue scientifically established treatment protocols found most appealing and effective. The last of the three special issues that have witnessed mushrooming and adoption of ad hoc policies is terrorism. The incorporation of the term in American law is quite recent in origin, with an increasingly popular usage only coming into much effect in the 1960s (Schmalleger, 2011). On the contrary to popular notion when used by the media and practitioners, the definition of terrorism is highly contestable in the realms of academia. However, every definition retains the element of violence, which is used as a means of inculcating fear. Accordingly, the U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Par. 2656 f (d). (d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” The causes of such calculated orchestration of terror seems to be varied in motive, and so may be advanced either for personal reasons (psychological state of mind driven by hate and/or desire for power), in support of Ideological beliefs and values or for strategic reasons such as getting attention. Historically, government's attempts to tame the spread of terrorism have come in varied responses. These have included the use of popular measures such as counteractive-violence, negotiations, and international conventions setting norms in opposing terror violence (Schmalleger, 2011). The United States, in particular, has periodically employed offensive measures in preventing, deterring, preempting, and responding to terrorist planned attacks. The military action against Qaeda operative networks in Afghanistan through the Taliban was one responsive example case of force meted against terrorists’ activities. The employment of military action in the case of Afghanistan invasion was a strategy aimed at disrupting, dismantling and ultimately scattering the terrorists’ capacity to operate. The United States’ long held ‘no concessions’ counterterrorism policy has had to be dropped in certain instances for negotiation. Its recent approach to engage Iraqi tribal militias in the al-Anbar province went against the norm, thus opening another frontier through which terrorists activities can be halted. The emergence of a stronger Hamas in recent times despite U.S. isolation strategy in the past has also strengthened the logic of negotiation as a viable option of resolving the Middle East conflict with Israel. Nonetheless, no attempts has ever been made to extend the same at Al-Qaeda; a clear indication that different counterterrorism strategies are directed in combating activities of different terrorist organizations. Finally, America has been at the fore front advocating for joint efforts battling terrorism, more so in advancing policies that ensures global safety. Analysis of the peculiarities and tendencies in criminal justice of the 21 century is never complete without the inclusion of the scientific and technical phenomenon of the nature of high-technology crime. While the police have enjoyed the monopoly of fighting crime for years, they remain perfect at what they are knowledgeable of, and so risks developing blind spots for crimes not routinely within their reach. One such prime example is Cybercrime (Schmalleger, 2011). Criminals are adaptive and always keep their tabs on the receptive mode. The expected changes in global environment, economic disparity for instance, will no doubt come with fresh opportunities for crime. The global economic crisis just had its effects in aggravating poverty levels through unemployment. Projected food crises as well as geopolitical unrest disrupting supply chains are set to fuel counterfeit markets and stolen goods. The Internet and related technologies will only serve to exacerbate vulnerabilities in the information society by putting tools at the disposal of organized criminal groups. The likelihood of overlapping organized crime and terrorists’ activities on the web are already evident, and the recent WikiLeaks activities are just but a tip of an iceberg. More creative model of policing that surpasses the traditional law enforcement investigations and prosecutions strategies needs to be looked into to deal with the new forms of criminality. References Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal Justice Today, An introductory text for the 21st century (11th ed.). London: Pearson Education. Read More