Reference no: EM131428951
Can you all please read and respond to the discussions below (4 responds) that furthers the discussions. At least 200 word each with at least one reference.
1. During the early 1970's the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (NAC) set forth the following criminal justice standards for the purpose of solidifying the premise of centralizing the entire law enforcement community at the state level; which would allot each entity to operate more clearly and concisely from the arrest to an individual all the way through to their exit from prison and/or custody.
Standard #16.4, Standard #2.5 and Court Standards: 12.4 and 13.6. (Stojkovic, 2015). Hence the term which addresses the formulation of a system that should operate for the specific reason it was designed for ergo form should in this case follow its function.
All of these standards significantly enhanced the criminal justice for all involved as evidenced by Standard #16.4 specifically addressed the unification of all state level correctional facilities to include adult and juvenile facilities to adhere to the states of which they reside rules and regulations.
Standard #2.5 identified police agencies that staff 10 or less police officers to become sheriff departments. The Court Standards 12.4 and 13.6 recommended that financial support was now authorized to be given to public defense and prosecutorial units. (Stojkovic, 2015).
2. Form should follow function. An overly complicated way of saying structure should support purpose. When relating the two, the agency being the form (structure) and the job being the function (purpose). The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals of 1973 set forth to combat conflicts within the nations numerous criminal justice agencies; attempting to lower the complex internal constituencies - situations in which criminal justice organizations had multiple and conflicting internal personnel, who each strove to achieve their own interests and objectives.
(Stojkovic, kalinich, & Klofas, 2015, p. 15) The reasoning of the NAC was to assist in resolving issues that spanned all components of the criminal justice system - courts, police, corrections, prosecution and defense (Skoler, 1988). Its object was to consolidate and unify the infrastructures purpose. Some of the most prominent issues proposed were overall unification of correctional facilities and services by the state; state financed judicial systems by the state; state organized support for local prosecutors and defender systems; and the consolidation of small police departments (Skoler, 1988).
The NAC believed that giving a central authority the ability to control certain programs would make an overall smoother process, guiding organizations to work under the same guidance for the same goals. The NAC may have actually inhibited change, because they only gave the system the appearance of having changed simply by revising and updating the language of the system (Kalinich and Banas, 1984).While the overall goal of the NAC was applaudable, it may have not been practical. With consolidated police departments, it would mean consolidated funds.
Often times areas of lesser population may need more resources than other areas due to specific tasks required. This would be more achievable for a department being its own jurisdiction. However, the same consolidation that would not work for the police would go on to work for the courts and correctional systems, as it would make tracking cases and offenders easier.
3. Criminal Justice Administrators play a significant role in not only running their department, but also moving it in the direction to better improve it, given who is pushing the upper-level directives. "Chief of police or corrections administrators who either reject the political aspects of their role or are simply inept at functioning within the political process typically fail to protect their agencies from political inputs" (Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas, 2015, pp. 80-81).
Sheriff David Clark is an excellent example of an administrator who took a major event and used it for political gain and process. Before the Dallas shooting Black Lives Matter was considered a protest to stop police violence on minorities. Once the Dallas shooting occurred Sheriff David Clark took a political stand and stated "Black Lives Matter has no more to do with black issues than Students for a Democratic Society had to do with Democracy.
They are means to an end, and they use the black population as sacrifices for their goals" (Clarke, 2016). With this statement, he was showing that not only his department but all departments in America needed to stand up to Black Lives Matter and no longer let them hide behind their fake message.
4. I believe that a great example of how criminal justice administrators can influence the political process and public policy is through the utilization of community outreach. As discussed in chapter three of our textbook, initiatives such as the "Flint Michigan foot patrols" can and often do make a positive effect on communities. As our text states this foot patrol effort was not a huge success, however it did make a positive effect on a struggling community; with an alarming unemployment rate of 23 percent.
Additionally, efforts such as these pressured Politicians to pass legislature such as the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2015, P. 69). Community outreach is an extremely powerful tool for criminal justice administrators. I think that William Bratton covered this topic well in his book "turnaround". Bratton began to utilize community outreach as a sounding board for whatever strategy that he was utilizing at that time. In his book Bratton stated that during one such meeting he was shocked to find that the major concern of citizens in his district was that their streets were dirty.
At that time Bratton had been focused on more serious crimes such as murder and drug sales (Bratton & Knobler, 1998). By establishing a relationship with their communities, criminal justice administrators are able find out what the real problems and concerns of the public are. Through the collection of this information, criminal justice administrators are able to influence politicians to fund initiatives and establish legislation.