Crime and Justice: Learning through Cases - Essay Example

Case Study Presented to Introduction As a probation officer, I am not allowed to exercise discrimination against any person due to the fact that they are of different races, sexual orientation, sex, religion or age. Even though part of these components become hard to attach proof as a probationer, I believe that the aggrieved party in this case will feel discriminated against as they mention their narrations to me in the probation superior office. In subsequent instances, officers make racial slurs that amounts to obvious discrimination. This considers the valid grounds in the changing of probation officers (Mendicino, 2010). Literature review The fact that there is a personal relationship with a friend’s son affects the underlying professional relationship in connection to probationer. This is a major contributor to a state of conflict of interest. Changing of probation officers is in the best interest for each of the parties as they could face accusations of conflicts of interest and could be placed on leave or fined. In the case of the probationer, he could face accusations of bargaining with me, the officer, as there is proof of a mutual interest. All positive aspects occurring between the probationer and the officer could be diluted as a result of such conflict of interest. Future research should accurately conceptualise role conflict and not simply infer that officers experience role conflict on the basis of community correctional officers having differing role preferences (LearningExpress. 2007). One strategy that might be useful is the development of an occupationally specific questionnaire focusing on the tensions between the welfare and enforcement aspects of the officers’ role. Such a questionnaire should differentiate between internal or personally based conflicts (intra role conflict) and external or organisationally based conflicts (inter-role conflict) (Mendicino, 2010). This approach appears valid in the present study, as both forms of conflict were related to emotional exhaustion. Such an approach would enable a more sophisticated understanding of the tensions faced by community correctional officers and clarification of the issues surrounding whether community correctional officers experience role conflict. If there is evidence of discriminatory against probationers in favour of a friend’s son, it is not appropriate to continue working on the case. There are other legal repercussions emerging against the probation agency. Probation authorities must adhere to lawful procedures, but must not adhere to any provisions with formal requirements of the former in making unlawful acts. In question as to the quality of the transaction, the formal should, if feasible, demand the providing formal or manager to clarify the transaction. An officer refusing to adhere to the engagement should be needed to justify his or her activities. Probation authorities learning of executing or observing execute that is in breach of any law or plan of this department should take necessary activity and review the occurrence to the officers immediate manager (Shoham, Beck & Kett, 2007). If the misconduct is committed by the immediate manager of the officer, the office should review the occurrence to the immediate supervisors superior. This instruction contains reporting unlawfully or alleged unlawful execute by other workers, violators and other individuals with whom get in touch with is created. Any social advances from probationers toward probation officers are classified as inappropriate. This will include both physical and verbal advances while the valid reasons towards requesting new probation officers are placed forth. This includes all forms of unprofessional and flirtatious gestures. Probation authorities, while on responsibility, should not make any act that, as described under law, represent sex-related pestering, such as, but not restricted to, making unwanted sex-related advances, inquiring sex-related prefers, engaging in sex-related inspired actual get in touch with or other spoken or actual execute or interaction of sex-related characteristics (Gelsthorpe & Morgan, 2013). This banned execute but is not restricted to, colleagues, managers, violators, family members and buddies of the perpetrator, volunteers, and contractors. There are various mechanisms in place allowing the application of restorative justice addition to, or as part of, appropriate criminal disposals. I will be looking at how to engage those methods both post- and pre- sentence. Criminal justice system agencies work towards increasing availability and capacity, while more victims are offered opportunities of participating in restorative justice (Durnescu & McNeill, 2013). The importance of this is to appropriate that the employ the element of restorative justice in a manner that is realistic, practical, and cost-effective while improving the interests of victims. Probation authorities should not bargain their reliability, the career or that of the department by getting or attempting to influence activities when an issue of interest exists. For a group to sustain it is believe in the reliability and impartiality of the department, officers must prevent getting or affecting formal activities where the officers activities would or could issue with the officers appropriate responsibilities (Mendicino, 2010). Probation authorities should, unless needed by law or plan, keep from becoming involved in formal issues, or affecting activities of other Correctional Authorities in formal issues, affecting the officers immediate family members, relatives, or individuals with whom the formal has or has had a significant personal connection (Boyes-Watson, 2013). Probation authorities should, unless needed by law or plan, keep from acting or affecting formal activities of other correctional authorities in formal issues affecting individuals with whom the formal has or has had a business or career connection. Probation authorities should not use the power of their place as probation authorities, or details available to them due to, starting or furthering personal or intimate communications of any kind with individuals with whom the formal has had got in touch with while on responsibility (Worth, 2001). Correctional authorities should not take part in any off responsibility career if the place adjustments or would reasonably tend to bargain the officers capability to impartially execute the officers formal responsibilities. For instance, it not appropriate for probationers and officers to exchange gifts or hold meetings outside the place of work while a case affecting both of them is underway (Whitehead, 2010). Probation authorities, while off responsibility, should not take part in any execute that the formal knows, or should reasonably know, constitutes an unwanted advance or demand for favour, or unwanted sexually inspired actual get in touch with or other unwanted spoken actual execute or interaction of characteristics. Authorities should not, in the course of performing their responsibilities, take part in any get in touch with or execute constituting lewd behaviour. Correctional Probation authorities should not make any functions that, as described under law, represent assault or indecent exposure. Probation officers have to make logical decisions in a timely approach. Through the interactions with other offenders, they need to assess if the son is genuine and truly focused at fulfilling his probation terms. In several instances, there is constant contact the courts to recommend more lenient or stricter probationary terms with respect to how things go on for the son. Correctional Probation authorities should execute their responsibilities and apply the law with impartiality and without a tendency or discrimination. The effectiveness of the group centred probation workplace requires the belief in of the group in which it operates. They should provide every personal in the society, such as violators under their guidance, with expert, courteous, effective and effective service (Flores, 2010). Practice issues Correctional authorities should observe the privacy of details available to them due to their place as correctional authorities. Probation authorities are commissioned with bulk of private and personal details, or have access thereto. Correctional authorities must sustain the privacy to protect the privacy of the subjects that details and to sustain the group believes in the officers and the department s commitment to preserving such confidences. Probation authorities should not intentionally breach any lawful restriction for release or dissemination of details (LearningExpress. 2007). Probation authorities should not, except in the course of formal responsibilities or as needed by law, publicly disclose details likely to jeopardize or embarrass victims, witnesses or complainants. Authorities should not divulge the identity of individuals providing private details except as needed by law or division plan. While some hold that probation officers are hard-edged, good probation officer has to develop the ability of building relationships. There must be a rapport with various offenders towards getting them to continue opening up as well as listening to stipulated direction (Harcourt, 2008). Correctional authorities should not bargain their reliability, or that of the department, by accepting, providing any gratuity that could be reasonably considered as able of affecting their formal functions or decision, or by using their place as a Probation Officer for personal or administrative obtain. For a group to have believed in its Correctional Probation Officers, officers must prevent execute that does or could cast question upon the impartiality of the person formal or the department. There is an essence of maintaining good relationships across the community where the families of offenders, local service agencies among other support systems helping the offender bounce back are availed. I will try to help my friend’s son get involved in programs and activities that found crime-free lifestyles (Mendicino, 2010). Probation authorities should not receive or obtain any gifts or compensation from violators or any other source than the condition that would damage the judgment independence, for services as employee. Probation authorities should not use their formal place, recognition credit cards or badges: for personal or profit, for themselves or another person; for obtaining privileges not available to them except in the efficiency of duty; and for avoiding consequences of unlawful or banned activities. Correctional Authorities should not lend to another personal their recognition credit cards or permit these items to be reproduced. Probation authorities should reject prefers or gratuities that could be reasonably considered as able of affecting formal functions or decision. I am expected to uphold high levels of privacy and respect for personal information solicited from probationer’s confidential meeting unless the disclosure is necessitated by law. Having to share such personal information with staff, friends or family is not appropriate. If there is a breach of this kind, there are legitimate reasons for changing probation officers. This seeks to determine whether prior research had accurately conceptualised role conflict on the basis of officers’ role preferences. An officers’ preference for welfare workers, protective agents, or punitive officers do not relate to the level of intra-role conflict, inter-role conflict, or role ambiguity experienced by officers (Jaishankar, 2011). However, as an officer, I experience intra-role conflict and inter-role conflict was found to experience greater levels of emotional exhaustion. The level of role ambiguity experienced by officers’ role preference scores are not related to the level of emotional exhaustion experienced by officers. Officers’ experience of intra-role conflict, inter-role conflict, role ambiguity, and officer’s role preference scores are not found to be related to the level of depersonalisation or reduced personal accomplishment experienced by officers. However, I have an ability of motivating others hence; I have a great advantage in my career. Even as a number of offenders undertake probation feeling down for their respective situations and huge uncertainties of the future, I will be in a position of positively guiding my friend’s son. Someone with a conviction of robbery in the enamouring community will feel shame in going into the community. I will the son to set goals towards improvement through encouraging him to take the necessary steps towards achieving them. The positive thoughts as well as behavioural strategies will be the necessary tool towards preventing all new crime problems. Probation authorities should treat all people courteously and with regard, such as violators under their guidance, office guests and colleagues. Probation authorities are a visible and integral part of the lawful rights program. Correctional authorities are heroines for their areas, family members and their colleagues. Therefore, as an officer, I need to make a positive impression when interacting with the perpetrator in the group, the group and each other. They should exercise courtesy in their dealings with violators, office guests, the group, other officers, managers and subordinates (Worth, 2001). Probation authorities should not make fun of, concept, deride, taunt, belittle, wilfully embarrass, embarrass, or shame any personal, such as violators under their guidance, or do anything reasonably measured to incite a personal to violence. They should promptly advise any inquiring citizen of the department’s complaint process and should adhere to the recognized divisional cover processing complaints. Critical Discussion I will be called upon by the ruling judge for purposes of making recommendations on the probation sentencing (Bayens, Bayens & Smykla, 2012). The consideration is one the case’s facts and experiences of other offenders and the possibility of more crimes in arriving at certain suggestions. Diverse areas must have believed in the equity and impartiality of all parts of the lawful rights program, such as probation. They must keep from promoting disharmony in their areas centred on diversity, and execute their responsibilities without regard to competition, colour, nationwide source, marriage place, and place about group support, impairment, sex-related alignment or age. They should not express, whether by act, omission or statement, tendency concerning competition, shade, creed, religious beliefs, nationwide source, marriage place, and place about group support, impairment, sex-related alignment or age. Correctional Probation authorities should not allow their decisions regarding a perpetrator, or the loved ones of the perpetrator to be influenced by competition, shade, creed, religious beliefs, and nationwide source. I will have excellent communication skills mostly with respect to listening. I will listen to while attaching an understanding on the court orders regarding monitoring the son’s activities. I will also listen to the son, his parents and others in his life with the aim of finding out if he has a high compliance rate. I will need an ability of helping the offender develop an understanding of the aspects that are expected of him during the probation (Shoham, Beck & Kett, 2007). The probation office has the task of communicating the probation terms for recommendations on the offender. Correctional probation authorities, whether on or off responsibility, will abide by and adhere to all federal, condition and public laws and regulations governing execution of condition workers and ordinances and guidelines enacted or recognized pursuant to lawful power. Correctional authorities execute their responsibilities pursuant to a grant of restricted power from the Legislature and the neighbourhood. Therefore, officers must understand the laws and regulations are defining the scope of their administratve abilities. They may only act in accordance with the abilities granted to them. Probation authorities should not intentionally exceed their authority in the administration of the law or in applying divisional guidelines to the violators they supervise (Abadinsky, 2014). Correctional Probation authorities should not intentionally disobey the law or guidelines of lawful process in such areas as arrest, searches, use of force, informants and disclosure of private details. They should not intentionally restrict the freedom of individuals under their guidance in breach of the Structure, laws and regulations of the state, or court purchases. Correctional Probation authorities, whether on or off responsibility, should not intentionally make any crime under any laws and regulations of the U.S States or any condition of the regional authority in which the formal officer is existing. Any formal that goes against this process may be subject to disciplinary action and the imposition of applicable legal penalties by the appropriate authorities. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that within all professions, there are sets of regulations and rules which individuals need to abide by for the purposes of attaining success. The paper explores the probation officer ethics in the case where the probation client is a son to a friend. It includes sample job posting telling the requirements that every individual must possess for purposes of qualifying for probation success (Souryal, 2010). To better understand the probation officer life, interviews with the profession experts is important to bring out examples of issues violating ethical principles of the profession and the application of the code of ethics in the probation office. Probation officers should keep from any executes in a formal capacity that readjusts the public’s reliability on the lawful right program. Thus, efficient and responsive group collaboration with the lawful rights program is produced when officers act with honesty, reliability and impartiality. The officers must act in a way that instills trust in the people. Also, probation authorities should carry out their responsibilities with reliability, equity and impartiality. They should not intentionally make false allegations. Correctional Probation authorities should truthfully, completely and impartially review, admit and existing proof, such as exculpatory proof, in all issues of formal characteristics to the sentencing or releasing power. References Harcourt, B. E. 2008. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. New York: University of Chicago Press. Boyes-Watson, C. 2013. Crime and Justice: Learning through Cases. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bayens, G., Bayens, G. J., Smykla, J. 2012. Probation, Parole, and Community-Based Corrections: Supervision, Treatment, and Evidence-Based Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Abadinsky, H. 2014. Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice. New York: Pearson Education, Limited. Durnescu, I., McNeill, F. 2013. Understanding Penal Practice. New York: Routledge. Flores, J. R. 2010. Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP¿s Comprehensive Gang Model (Model). New York: DIANE Publishing. Jaishankar, K. 2011. Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and Criminal Behaviour. New York: CRC Press. LearningExpress. 2007. (Organization) Probation Officer/ Parole Officer Exam. New York: LearningExpress, LLC. Gelsthorpe, L., Morgan, R. 2013. Handbook of Probation. New York: Routledge. Whitehead, P. 2010. Exploring Modern Probation: Social Theory and Organisational Complexity. New York: Policy Press. Worth, R., 2001. Probation and Parole. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. Souryal, S. S. 2010. Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. New York: Elsevier. Shoham, S. G., Beck, O., Kett, M. 2007. International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice. New York: CRC Press. Mendicino, T. 2010. Probation. New York: Kensington Publishing Corporation. Read More